Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was 183K and almost completely unusable. I have done something nonstandard and probably infuriating and refactored it ruthlessly to about 100K [1]. Flames and general comments to the talk page, please; if I summarized your words, I am leaving you a note on your individual talk page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Two other "refactored versions" of this page exist at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Aaron Brenneman's refactor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Tony Sidaway's refactor)

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Userbox creation stopped -withdrawn 2.3 Userbox deletion stopped-withdrawn 2.4 Tony Sidaway banned from deleting material on related pages 2.5 Tony Sidaway banned from editing these arbitration pages -withdrawn 2.6 Aaron Brenneman restricted from editing pages of this arbitration -withdrawn 3 Proposed principles 3.1 Template 3.2 Userpages 3.3 Content of user pages 3.4 Function of user pages 3.5 Recreated content 3.6 Recreated content 3.7 Second accounts 3.8 Jimbo as the ultimate authority 3.9 Jimbo as policy maker 3.10 Deletion is a reversible operation, with the exception of images 3.11 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 3.12 Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider 3.13 Opinion on Userpages 3.14 Entertainment 3.15 Wide latitude granted on userpages 3.16 Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process 3.17 Administrators may make mistakes 3.18 Vocal "community consensus" cannot overrule good sense and project focus 3.19 Procedure in the event of active community conflict 3.20 Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point 3.20.1 Two wrongs don't make a right 3.21 Process is Important 3.22 Assume good faith 3.23 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 3.24 The role of the arbitration committee 3.25 Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted 3.26 Disruption 4 Proposed findings of fact 4.1 Tony Sidaway has deleted many userboxes 4.1.1 Tony Sidaway has engaged with the userbox question 4.2 The sudden growth of userboxes on Wikipedia 4.2.1 Explosive increase in creation of userboxes 4.3 Extensive discussions have taken place regarding userboxes 4.4 Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes 4.5 Tony Sidaway's statement on draft RfC -withdrawn 4.6 Dispute over a proposal by Tony Sidaway on an RfC 4.7 Tony says he'll stop disputed activities and review the situation in a month 4.8 Tony Sidaway deletes the cloned and recreated userboxes 4.9 The T1 speedy deletion criterion 4.10 The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates 4.11 Crotalus horridus vehemently opposes the T1 speedy deletion criterion 4.12 The operation of User:Userboxes was an abuse of Wikipedia 4.13 The operation of User:Userboxes was not an abuse of Wikipedia-withdrawn 4.14 The nature of T1 speedy deletions 4.15 Tony Sidaway's participation in the userbox debate 4.16 Tony Sidaway vehemently opposes "vote stacking" tools -withdrawn 4.17 Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology 4.18 Tony Sidaway has engaged in repeated reversal of other admins' actions 4.19 Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia 4.20 Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template 4.21 Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable 4.22 Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times 4.22.1 Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete-withdrawn 4.22.2 Nandesuka engaged in pointless deletion warring 4.23 Proposed policy on divisive user pages 4.23.1 Proposed policy on userboxes 4.24 Pathoschild's user project 4.25 Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Wikipedia 4.26 Tony was right, but his methods have sometimes upset people 4.27 Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles 4.27.1 Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles (simple) 4.27.2 Tony Sidaway and undeletion (roughtest draft) 4.27.3 Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles (simple 2) 4.28 Template 5 Proposed remedies 5.1 Template 5.2 Crotalus admonished on policy -withdrawn 5.3 Tony Sidaway admonished on use of adminstrator's powers 5.4 Tony Sidaway to be desysopped 5.5 Tony Sidaway to not undo any administrative action undertaken by another admin more than once in a seven day period 5.6 Nandesuka cautioned 5.7 Userboxes limited 5.8 Pathoschild commended 5.9 Tony Sidaway banned 5.10 Tony Sidaway admonished on consensus 6 Proposed enforcement 6.1 Template 7 Analysis of evidence 7.1 Template 8 General discussion 8.1 Word Smog -withdrawn

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Userbox creation stopped -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Userbox deletion stopped-withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned from deleting material on related pages

3) That Tony Sidaway shall delete no material from any pages relating to this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Obviously he should leave refactoring to others. Fred Bauder 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't think we need an injunction over such a trivial matter. We seem to have attracted the attentions of a clerk, who can perform such refactoring as may become necessary, so I undertake not to remove any more of Aaron Brenneman's skeleton findings of fact. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron Brenneman and Michael Ralston agree. (summary: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned from editing these arbitration pages -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Aaron Brenneman restricted from editing pages of this arbitration -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Userpages

1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:User page.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not phrased well. A userpage is that of a Wikipedia editor and while it need not be strictly enforced large amounts of information irrelevant to either the user or Wikipedia editing is not acceptable. Userboxes express the personality of the user and are an aid to other users in relating to them. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comments by Lar on the talk page. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Content of user pages

1.1) User pages may contain information about yourself, your Wikipedia activities, and your opinions about Wikipedia issues. Wikipedia:Userboxes are welcome, provided they do not violate Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:User page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes is a work in progress and that Jimbo may chose to proclaim policy, either on his own or in consultation with others, such as the arbitration committee. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Function of user pages

1.2) User pages which contain information about the users, their Wikipedia activities, and their opinions about Wikipedia issues, whether written out or expressed through user boxes serve to communicate useful information regarding users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Whatever is on a user page can serve as a convenient, if rough, guide to what can be expected from a user. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lar notes that knowing editors' biases can be useful; Physchim62 disagrees, stating it's only the edits, Lar cites a counterexample. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Recreated content

2) If a page, image, or template deleted because its use was inappropriate is reproduced under the same or a different name anywhere on Wikipedia either with the intention of, or with the end result of, the new item being used in the same way as the deleted item, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, trying to work around a community decision ought not to work. A decision might be reversed, but that decision should be made after a transparent request for changing the decision. Fred Bauder 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed wording, to make it more clear that it's not all deleted content but content deleted because its use was inappropriate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony remarks that if something is being used the same way, it should not be treated differently. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Tangential comments removed, rewording seems to have addressed other concerns about deleted content vs. content deleted for a specific reason. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

What does "deleted because its use was inappropriate" mean? Is something ever deleted for any other reason? Paul August ☎ 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it does not apply to the userboxes, because at least some of the reasoning is that they should not be in Template- or Category- space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreated content

2.1) If a page, image or template deleted through consensus or recognized policy is reproduced under the same or a different name anywhere on Wikipedia either with the intention of, or with the end result of, the new item being used in the same way which prompted deletion, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ok Fred Bauder 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony believes this wording "through consensus or recognized policy" limits admin judgment and enables wikilawyers. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

InkSplotch notes that "recognized policy" is not necessarily just what is written; Geni does not believe "common sense" alone justifies anything. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Second accounts

3) Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, yes, but not necessary as a principle. A person is responsible for all the accounts they create. Fred Bauder 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

David Gerard reamrks that the Ciz case differs as this case's sock is openly linked. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jimbo as the ultimate authority

4) Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects, as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Jimbo acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo. Users who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including banning and desysopping, particularly temporary ("emergency") desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think Jimbo's placement of the policy is being complained about so much as the interpretation of it by admins. (Not that it isn't being complained about some.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has definite opinions regarding use of user boxes and may promulgate binding policy should he choose to. Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This principle is not well expressed and I will offer alternative wording as principle 4.1 Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. This is related to proposed findings of fact 7 and 9, and proposed remedy 1. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Remarks that Jimbo has not explicitly called for deletion (bringing relevance into question), and that "divisive" is subjective. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I would rephrase to state that Jimbo has explicitly not called for immediate deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For this principle to be workable there needs to be some way of knowing which of Jimbo's actions are "ordinary" and which are ex cathedra. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo as policy maker

4.1) Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jimbo will be most effective when he works closely with other in formulating policy and exercises his power sparingly. Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deletion is a reversible operation, with the exception of images

5) The deletion policy recognises that, with the exception of images, deletion is a reversible operation and thus entrusts administrators with discretion, subject to cause, using their own judgement to delete some items that match certain criteria (speedy deletion). If an administrator wrongly deletes an item, he or any other administrator may undelete it under the exception clause of the undeletion policy, or any other editor may submit the deletion to review in Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems OK. Fred Bauder 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Although some deleted things do not seem to be recoverable Fred Bauder 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties and others:

Septentrionalis comments that, for non-admins, deletion is not readily reversible or reviewable; this is one of the tensions underlying the userbox controversy. Septentrionalis 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony agrees that it is not always easy to find someone to undelete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Remarks that deletion is easily undone, that it is difficult for non-admins to get deletion reversed, tangential comments about the technical reversibility of deletion. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Deleted content is not backed up, nor is there any particular stratagy in place to retain it indefinately. All deleted content must therefore be considered volatile. Kim Bruning 11:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

6) WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Whilst it is acceptable to express personal opinions not directly related to Wikipedia, particularly in the context of revealing one's editing bias, Wikipedia is not the place for proselytism, advocacy, or promotion of those opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough, but that principle addresses the article namespace, not appropriate expression on user pages of where the user is coming from. Obviously a user can go too far and violate Wikipedia policy by going too far, but that is first, a matter for their own self-discipline, a question to discuss with them, but only as a last resort for administrative or dispute resolution action. Fred Bauder 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony responds to Sjakkalle, clarifying that it applies to userspace, and "this principle implies not simply expression of opinion, but promotion, proselytism and advocacy of any kind. The former is acceptable as a means of disclosing a bias or telling people about yourself; the latter is an abuse of Wikipedia." He produces findings of fact 12 ("The nature of T1 speedy deletions") and 19 ("Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable") and their associated evidence in response to Dragonfiend, and mention that Crotalus' actions must be considered in the context of the situation. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Sjakkalle notes that article space and userspace are treated differently. Dragonfiend asks for an associated finding of fact that states one of the parties has violated this principle. MarkSweep notes that WP:NOT says explicitly: "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well. For example, you can't use your user page as a free web host." Jdavidb remarks that expression of opinion is not the same as proselytism or advocacy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider

7) WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog or webspace provider

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough and a user who uses their user page in that way is out of line. However a user page which is interesting, gives some sense of how the user contributes to and feels about Wikipedia, including some userboxes, is appropriate and useful. Fred Bauder 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7.1) Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a free host, blog or webspace provider: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, the express language is quoted, but interesting and informative user pages, including appropriate user boxes remain useful to the project. Fred Bauder 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seems germane to the operation of an account with the purpose of providing transcludable templates for the decoration of user pages. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I prefer the full statement - it's phrased as a guideline, but it's on a policy page and makes it pretty clear that your user page is about you in the context of Wikipedia. - David Gerard 13:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on Userpages

8) Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F: [What can I not have on my user page] Opinion or other pieces not related to Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposed principle is rather poorly phrased as it does not distinguish between a brief and appropriate disclosure of where the user is coming from and lengthy essays on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:User_page makes it clear that you can't use you user page as a blog or personal webpage, but does not discourage disclosure of what you are into and how you feel about things. It is an opportunity to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community and done well is interesting and informative; if done poorly, it may not be interesting, but is certainly informative. Fred Bauder 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Geni notes that guidelines are not policy; David prefers the full quote from WP:NOT, which is policy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Entertainment

9) wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Things that fall into "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project

Comment by Arbitrators:

An interesting user page may contain some "entertainment" which may either serve to illuminate the character of the user or create a bad impression. In either event it serves the function of creating a useable impression to other users which they can use in relating to the user. Obviously a vast amount of unrelated material is inappropriate and a violation of using the space as a personal webpage. Fred Bauder 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sjakkalle comments about superfluous content on his own userpage; Robchurch responds that the difference is in how much of his Wikipedia activity is spent maintaining that content. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wide latitude granted on userpages

10) The Wikipedia community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:User page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support this principle, although I might copyedit it some. Fred Bauder 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony agrees, stating that the problem is not the content of the boxes but their use. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Sjakkalle and David note that this guideline is not a problem, though its application is a problem of judgment. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process

11) Administrators, like all editors, should be respectful of consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear or is in dispute, applications of SysOp rights should show deference to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, and one question in this arbitration is whether and to what extent Tony Sidaway has run ahead of Wikipedia's consensus decision making process. Beyond that, is the question of whether, when he stipulates to the principle, we ought to be engaging in our perfect hind-sight and applying strict disciplinary measure to an administrator who is presumed to have proceeded in good faith. Fred Bauder 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony agrees that he runs ahead of consensus and proposes his desysopping, one sufficient condition being 6 arbitrators agreeing that he has damaged the project. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron states that arguments should stand without the use of admin rights to force them. Lar believes desysopping is going too far; Improv believes Tony's boldness is justified for being fully in line with the goals of the project. Geni remarks that boldness is possible without breaking policy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Administrators may make mistakes

12) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistent or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status, or the placement of restrictions upon particular administrator powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, consensus on that point Fred Bauder 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

":See proposed remedy 4" might be proposed principle 4 but seems to not be relevant Fred Bauder 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, passed 13-0. See proposed remedy 3. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See proposed remedy 4. Nandesuka 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal "community consensus" cannot overrule good sense and project focus

13) In some cases, a popular interest amongst the Wikipedia community may be harmful to the project and need action, even in the face of vocal opposition, including opposition from administrators (c.f. the pedophilia userbox wheel war).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Extremely poorly phrased, but there is a valid point. I will try to rephrase as 13.5 Fred Bauder 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Couldn't have put it better myself. This isn't a license to abuse the sysop bit, but rather a statement to the effect that if a situation is obviously bad for the encyclopedia one can take an unpopular but needed action. The instances cited in this case are cases of overt disruption, through a direct attack on the neutrality policy (proposed finding of fact 17), and multiple incitement to vandalism (proposed finding of fact 18). There are nuances here and in the context of the pedophile userbox case I expect the committee to think things through carefully, but the principle may be a useful one as we move from a smaller more homogeneous community to a larger one in which project focus is no longer distributed evenly. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

David and Robchurch note the lack of enculturation of new admins; Geni claims that due to RfA standards they are up to speed sufficiently. Lar notes further comment on the talk page. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Procedure in the event of active community conflict

13.5) From time to time opinion among users, and even among inexperienced administrators, may differ from Wikipedia policies. Due to spectacularly rapid growth, the influx of many new users and promotion of relatively inexperienced users to administrator status, lack of full socialization in Wikipedia principles and practices creates the potential for the outbreak of conflict, (c.f. the pedophilia userbox wheel war). In such cases the dispute will be resolved by experienced administrators familiar with and committed to fundamental Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in consultation with User:Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia or by Jimbo Wales directly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this addresses what happens when "all hell breaks loose". Experienced supporters and the founder of Wikipedia are not going to lose their heads, but will take effective and appropriate action. Fred Bauder 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I like this a lot and I wish it had been in place during the Catholic Alliance affair. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Physchim62 asks: who is an "experienced" admin? Fred remarks that Jimbo plays this role, as do those who regularly consult with him. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

14) Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm agreeing with the stance that this wasn't disruption to make a point. I'm also agreeing with the stance that it was disruptive (and I don't know that anyone seriously disputes this), but it wasn't to make a point. (As I see it.)

So, are we left with "don't disrupt Wikipedia"? How about "don't disrupt Wikipedia without solid justification for doing so"? (If you prefer a stronger form, make it "unnecessarily".) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony believes that no party here acted in bad faith. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka believes this clearly applies, and is relevent to several findings of fact. David disagrees, stating "WP:POINT is about doing something you don't want to happen". Nandesuka questions the purpose of Tony's actions if not WP:POINT. However, it is generally agreed that the actions were disruptive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two wrongs don't make a right

14.1) Administrators should avoid getting into battles over the right way of doing something. If someone appears to have done the right thing in the wrong way, discuss this and explain why it was done wrong. To undo the action because you disagree with the way in which it was done leads to needless disruption of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony believes that Nandesuka's actions were "motivated by a feeling that the right thing had been done in the wrong way", proposes this as an alternative to citing WP:POINT. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

David believes that if this is true Nandesuka has violated WP:POINT. Aaron praises Nandesuka for acting according to accepted practices despite his personal opinion, stating that admins as janitors are not empowered to sidestep process in most cases. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process is Important

15) Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out community consensus, and for allowing a very large number of people to work together on a collaborative project. Process is also the mechanism by which users can trust that others are playing fair, that the rules do not suddenly change, nor are they different for some privileged editors. Poor process or no process ultimately harms the product. Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to administrators, or knowledge available only to long-established editors. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for people to contribute. For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations. If a process is not good, think enough of fellow Wikipedians to engage the problem and propose a change to it; don't just ignore the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony states that "process is important [...] But some things are more important", citing the pedophile userbox wheel war and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cyrus Farivar. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

David protests that this page is not policy; Nandesuka replies that principles do not need to be policy. Kim does not believe the principle is currently true. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Lack of respect for process leads to anarchy and chaos. Paul August ☎ 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

16) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony proposes that this relates to undeletion out of concern for process rather that correctness of outcome. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Nandesuka proposes that this relates to Tony's undoing of the action of seven different administrators acting in good faith, and that he himself is not a party to the case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

17) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [2] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The purposes of Wikipedia are advanced by liberal policies regarding self-expression by users on their own user pages. A crabbed approach does nothing to serve our purposes or maintain the élan of our contributors. Fred Bauder 15:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony commends Pathoschild for User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes, in relation to this goal. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

MArkSweep believes this principle states the obvious. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] The role of the arbitration committee

18) "The ArbComm's job is not to enforce the rules. The ArbComm's job is to protect the encyclopedia. That end necessarily and sufficiently justifies the means. In short, if someone is harming the encyclopedia by following the rules, then, yes, we will reprimand people for following the rules."[3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I question whether this comment by a single arbitrator, lifted from its context, relates in any way as a principle in this matter. Fred Bauder 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that someone who disrupts the functioning of the encyclopedia will not be excused because they "followed the rules" or more likely to be applicable in this case, "followed Jimbo's lead." Fred Bauder 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony had requested a statement on the use of bold action to overrule bad process; Sjakkalle asks if this means he wants arbcom to "start reprimanding people for following the rules", and Tony responds that yes, when the rules are used "in defence of doing something stupid"; above principle quotes The Epopt.

Comment by others:

Ends do not justify means, because, in the long run bad means always lead to bad ends. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted

19) Templates, including userboxes which are polemical or inflammatory may be speedily deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Templates. For discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Comment_on_project_page_asked_for_links_to_Jimbo.27s_opinions, especially Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Regarding_the_new_Template_CSD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The dates of this discussion are relevant as they are ongoing Fred Bauder 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interesting principle. Without commenting on whether it is or should be a policy, it clearly doesn't apply to many of Tony's deletions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

20) Disruptive conduct may lead to a block imposed at an administrators' discretion, or more substantial bans or restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There has been disruption in the events related to this case, and that can lead to blocks or bans/remedies by arbcom (or both). So I don't see a problem. The fact that blocks for disruption are controversial does not mean they are not do-able, and, as in the case of MSK, a month-long block for disruption (among other more concrete things) was finally settled upon. That they are up for review by the community, as all admin actions are, does not mean it isn't still at the admin's discretion. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "complete discretion" and why it's bad; there is no denial of community review here. Dmcdevit·t 00:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tony notes that this is a backport of a principle added by a member of the arbitration committee. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron calls for a need for a measure of disruption and proposes word count; David rejects it.

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Tony Sidaway has deleted many userboxes

1) The deletion log show that Tony Sidaway has commited 162 acts of deletion on 133 distinct items, 17 of these more than once. Only 39 of these remain redlinks.

If the boxes recreated in user space are discounted, this is still 140 acts on 113 items, of which only 19 (or %14) remain redlinks.

Examples of deletions include deletion log Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal

Comment by Arbitrators:

In response to Tony, this case is very much about userbox policy, including whether there is any coherent policy. This includes policy made by the community, policy promulgated by Jimbo, and the practices of our users and administrators. My questions include acceptance by the user community of those policies and practices and the wisdom of being bold in an ambiguous, even inflammatory situation. Fred Bauder 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A few minutes research on the bluelinks shows that this proposed finding of fact ignores bona fide recreations of previously unacceptable templates, templates protected against recreation (which do not show as redlinks), and recreation of deleted templates as redirects to other templates. With the exception of the initial mass deletion of belief and religion templates of January 3, I see very few templates that I have deleted that have survived in their original form. Obviously we don't want to clutter the history of acceptable templates with unacceptable forms that can give ideas to vandals. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony also states that the case is not about userbox policy, but his (and Crotalus's) conduct. He presents an annotated timeline of userbox-related admin actions in /Evidence. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron formulates this FoF straight from the deletion log; it is later summarized. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway has engaged with the userbox question

1.1) Tony Sidaway's initial engagement with userboxes--to delete some 80 of them on January 3, was unproductive, but he has not repeated the same error. In mid January, he tried to form a consensus for dealing with userboxes that attack people, companies, and organisations, which he discussed on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, by deleting them and taking them for review on Wikipedia:Deletion review. In late January, he welcomed Jimbo Wales' call to editors to "simply change the culture, one person at a time" by suggesting that if people did not feel ready to give up their userboxes, they might instead consider using the "subst" command to place them on their pages, and then edit them to make them more individual and more descriptive of themselves[4]. In mid-February, he worked with other administrators identifying, tagging an deleting userboxes that, in the view of those administrators, passed the T1 criteria of "divisive" or "inflammatory." He has engaged the subject on the mailing list, on IRC, on policy pages devoted to userboxes, on Wikipedia:Deletion review, in a question put to all other candidates in the arbcom elections, and on the talk page of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. (See Evidence - Tony_Sidaway's administrator actions with respect to userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony believes this is a more complete and more accurate FoF. He states that very few people he is in contact with have political, polemical or religious userboxes on their pages (around 10%).

Comment by others:

Lar asks about Tony's userbox review project. Aaron comments on Tony's practice of deleting items and taking them for review where consensus is unclear. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] The sudden growth of userboxes on Wikipedia

2) Some 1500 userboxes were created in December, 2005, more than had been created in the entire history of Wikipedia. The rate of creation peaked in January, 2006, at some 2000 userboxes. In the first two weeks of February, 2006, the rate of creation appeared to have dropped again, with about 600 userboxes created in the first two weeks of that month. The total number of userboxes stood at about 3500 in early January and 5900 by mid-February (source: Wikipedia database.). The overwhelming majority of userboxes relate to languages, skills and interests and are uncontroversial. The page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs contains templates intended to describe an editor's ideological persuasion and contains a disproportionate number of controversial templates alongside some that are less so. Examples are "This user is pro-choice", "This user favors Authoritarian or Totalitarian government", "This user identifies as a Social Democrat." The contents of this page had grown from about 45 on January 3rd to about 150 in mid-February. (See Evidence - Growth of Userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The data on general quantity and growth is from my own sql scripts run on a live mirror of the Wikipedia database on January 4 and February 14, which I have submitted in evidence. The count of belief-based boxes is from the history of the page itself. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Geni's question about the Great Renaming, I can't find that many of them frankly. There are about 80 deleted boxes whose names were originally "Userbox_something", and there are also about 100 or so deleted "User_something" templates that were originally created before December, 2005, but a lot of these (in both sets) were in fact moved and then for some reason the redirects were deleted.

I have no precise count for the number that were copy-pasted although I'm trying to get this.

Only those userboxes which were cloned by copy-paste, rather than moved, would have lost their history and thus wrongly be listed as December creations. So there may be at most 200 or so userboxes whose inception date is wrongly stated as December, whereas their actual creation was in some earlier month. In fact my initial tests seem to suggest that a very high proportion of the renamings were done by moves, although for some reason the redirects were then deleted and these deletions show up in the figures that I cite in this response. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron and Geni wonder if the numbers account for the mass renaming, redirects, unused templates, etc. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Maybe the above comments address this (their exact implications aren't clear to me), but on the face of it the numbers and facts given cannot possibly all be right. If 1500 was greater than the total number ever created prior to December, then at the very beginning of January there were fewer than 3000 userboxes. (This does not, in itself, contradict there being 3500 in "early January", for certain values of "early"). If 2600 were created in January and the first half of February, that would make somewhere under 5600 at that point. 300 extra boxes seem to have appeared somewhere - my guess is before December, contrary to the "more than had been created..." bit. PurplePlatypus 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explosive increase in creation of userboxes

2.1) From late 2005, there was a vast increase in template production on Wikipedia, in the form of thousands of userboxes, templates designed to be transcluded on a user's page, with the intention of expressing an aspect of that user's identify, such as his skills, lifestyle. views, age, sex or nationality. (See Evidence - Growth of Userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

New draft. I'm assembling more evidence and if you do so too please edit to include a reference to your evidence. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence amply supports the use of the word "explosive". The explosion has continued, with political userboxes tripling from 45 to 150 in a six week period. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Extensive discussions have taken place regarding userboxes

3) (To do: Use word count of discussions following each deletion/creation as a very rough metric of the amount of "disruption" created by these actions.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Odd idea to use discussion as a measure of disruption. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron proposes word count as a measure of disruption caused. David replies that it is a poor metric and too easily gamed; Aaron asks for a better measure. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes

4) On February 6th, 2006, in response to a debate on a proposed policy to place userbox templates in userspace, Crotalus created a user account User:Userboxes and announced this on Wikipedia talk:Use of userboxes. The account remained dormant until February 11th-12th, when Crotalus used the account to perform recreations in userspace of the templates Template:User Anti-UN, Template:User Anti-ACLU, and Template:User admins_ignoring_policy, which had been deleted a few hours before by User:Physchim62 (UN, ACLU) and User:Tony Sidaway (Admins) under the new T1 "inflammatory and divisive" speedy deletion criterion.

He also created userspace copies of Template:User freedom, Template:User m1911, and Template:User anti-fascism, which at that time had not been deleted. Crotalus replaced transclusions of deleted templates in several userpages with the newly created templates[5] [6], having the intended effect of restoring the userboxes to their former use.

Early on February 12, Silence (talk • contribs) also recreated copies of two deleted templates, Template:User antiatheist and Template:User antiatheist2, which has been deleted under the T1 criterion by Physchim62 and MarkSweep. (see evidence page). Like Crotalus he updated transclusion links of deleted templates to point to the new copies [7], [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The core events. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Tony Sidaway's statement on draft RfC -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Dispute over a proposal by Tony Sidaway on an RfC

5.1) On February 1, in response to concerns expressed, Tony Sidaway announced that he would "lay off DRV for a bit" [9], which included stopping temporary undeletions of articles under discussion and stopping deletions of templates. He did not perform any of these operations for over a week, while maintaining that they were not abusive in any way. However, he had suggested "Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels" and this was interpreted by some people as a promise to lay off these activities for the month of February, which he disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony disputes promising to stop deleting templates for a month, stating that he agreed only to lay off for a brief time, and that even if he had it would not be wrongdoing. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Haukurth states this is Crotalus' reason for filing the case; Nandesuka disputes Tony's assertion that he did not make such a promise. Geni cites a mailing list post saying similar things: [10]; Charles Stewart believes the statement was indeed ambiguous. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony says he'll stop disputed activities and review the situation in a month

5.2) On February 1, in response to concerns expressed, Tony Sidaway announced that he would:

• Lay off DRV for a bit
• Stop deleting templates
• Stop undeleting deleted articles

He added: "Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels." [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Current version is okay. I prefer 2.1 because it describes the dispute and does so accurately. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Haukurth remarks that he has difficulty reading Tony's statement in such a way that does not imply he will stop disputed template deletions for a month. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway deletes the cloned and recreated userboxes

6) At 10:30, 12 February, Netoholic (talk • contribs) announced on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that Crotalus had created the account as "an end run around deletion process". Tony Sidaway checked the userspace search listing given by Netoholic and, noting that the account contained clones of existing userbox templates and recreations of others, deleted them all between 10:32 and 10:40. He then wrote about this on the noticeboard, saying "I don't doubt Crotalus horridus' good faith belief that he's doing nothing wrong here, but this kind of recreation is not right. Putting a template into user-space for the purpose of transclusion doesn't exempt it from the requirement of not being inflammatory and divisive", [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Straightforward. Documented on evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 08:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The T1 speedy deletion criterion

7) On February 6th, sannse (talk • contribs) added a new criterion for speedy deletion: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." This was reverted twice by Crotalus horridus who said in an edit summary "Speedy deleting userboxes is much more disruptive than letting them stay. Nor was there any consensus for this criteria change", but supported by Physchim62 (talk • contribs) and Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) [13].

The latter said, in words that were widely interpreted as making the new criterion official policy: "At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist. A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this." [14]. The new criterion was discussed and found broad acceptance as an edict from Jimbo acting in the interests of the encyclopedia [15],, [16] ,[17],[18] [19] [20], about a dozen administrators have performed deletions on this criterion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Policy was accepted widely, though perhaps a little grudgingly. Relevant to proposed principle 4 ("Jimbo as the ultimate authority")and proposed remedy 1 ("Crotalus admonished on policy"). --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron does not believe this germane, as this case is not about the policy's existence but its application; MarkSweep disagrees, stating that Crotalus does not accept it. Geni calls for evidence that it is widely accepted; David cites much application and little argument. Haukurth comments on the difficulty of interpretation; other remark that tags are removed mainly out of disagreement in interpretation rather than defiance of policy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates

8) Crotalus used the userboxes account to circumvent the deletion of templates by providing functionally identical replacements in userspace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from earlier findings. --Tony Sidaway 09:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

T-rex disagrees, stating it was not created to circumvent deletion but to move userboxes from template space to user space; Aaron proposes withdrawal of the finding. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Crotalus horridus vehemently opposes the T1 speedy deletion criterion

9) Crotalus horridus has opposed the T1 speedy deletion criterion from its inception, reverting Sanne's original edit twice in less than half an hour on February 6 shortly after it was added [21] [22]. and once again removing the criterion altogether on February 12 [23].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Establishes Crotalus' animus and motive for performing his actions. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I propose this be withdrawn. There are no proposed remedies relating to Crotalus, he's widely accepted to have been acting in good faith, and is continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The operation of User:Userboxes was an abuse of Wikipedia

10) Crotalus horridus' operation of his secondary account was not acceptable. Users may not operate a secondary account for the purpose of recreating deleted templates in the userspace to serve as drop-in replacements for the deleted templates. If a user believes that a template has been wrongly deleted the undeletion policy provides appropriate mechanisms for recreation, or he can be bold and rewrite the template with content that does not merit speedy deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony proposes either this or FoF 11, refers to proposed principle 5, asks if he acted unreasonably in immediately removing what he perceived to be disruptive edits. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron and Haukurth agree that this dichotomy is not useful. SCZenz believes the use of User:Userbox was a clear effort to use wikilawyering to evade CSD T1 and the point holds; Aaron believe that the power imbalance between a normal user and an admin needs to be taken into account; SCZenz believes that the non-admin is also not justified for holding up a "poor man's wheel war" and should pursue other means of resolution.

[edit] The operation of User:Userboxes was not an abuse of Wikipedia-withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] The nature of T1 speedy deletions

12) A number of templates have been deleted by different administrators under the T1 speedy deletion criterion. While individual opinions by reasonable people may vary, the nature of the templates speedy deleted can fairly be characterized as tending to promote controversy rather than to inform, and inviting the reader to either agree or disagree with the opinion stated. Examples include: "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate troop withdrawal", "This user thinks that the USA is a police state", "This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted," "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice" and "This user accepts that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but sure wishes the United States were one.". Such bald statements, without nuance, elaboration or context, amount to no more than slogans, and have never been encouraged on Wikipedia. Some are grossly ucivil and, while seeking to amuse, are also clearly calculated to cause offense. See Evidence -T1 deletions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've dug out the whole lot and put descriptions in evidence.

Events since I first framed this finding are beginning to make it look a little dated, but it was true of the time during which I myself was involved in implenenting the T1 speedy. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a biased re-telling of events. It fails to detail how many other administrators have deleted templates as divisive both before and after the new CSD, it fails to detail the number of templates deleted by these administrators, and has chosen as examples only the most egregious of deleted templates. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway's participation in the userbox debate

13) Tony Sidaway has engaged fully in the userbox debate, providing figures and analysis from the Wikipedia database. [24],[25],[26],[27],[28].[29],[30], expressing his fear of developing an antagonistic culture on Wikipedia, but welcoming and supporting and extending Jimbo's initiative to change the culture of Wikipedia [31]. His contributions on this issue have been on both mailing lists [32],[33] , and the wiki, in appropriate policy and talk pages [34][35],[36],[37] his questions to all other arbitration committee canddidates [38], and elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although most of the diffs I give point to the mailing list, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of my comments on this issue have been on the wiki. Not that this matters. The mailing list is open to all and the archives are open. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron states that mailing list discussions are not to be used to claim consensus on-wiki, and the other diffs fail to show Tony engaging in meaningful dialog, nor are other editors' requeusts for Tony to stop presented. SCZenz notes that use of the mailing list for discussions of Wikipedia policy is one of Jimbo's principles and that Tony only claims discussion, not consensus; David notes that top-down decisions are presented on the mailing-list. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway vehemently opposes "vote stacking" tools -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology

15) In response to concerns regarding his repeated deletion of restored material Tony Sidaway has dismissed these as "kerfuffle". In response to a complaint by DESiegel that "I undeleted this [ed: {{User GWB}}], and he re-deelted it. i am not going to get into a wheel-war by redeleting it. i think this deletion is out-of-process, and given the various policy discussions no ongoing, very unwise." [39] Tony responded in a statement beginning "Reply to DESiegal:" that he considered this "a good way to cook".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony states that the proposed finding of fact misrepresents his views on repeated deletion (to be used in extreme cases such as incitement to vandalism). He also states that ""a good way to cook" is not a defense of that practice but rather a description of the practice of speedy deleting objectionable templates and then placing the decision up for review, the words being a response to DESiegel and his Wikipedia:Process is important essay. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron states that this establishes disregard for proposed principle 11: Respect, and characterization as a "pioneering" action and "backed up by confirmation on Wikipedia:Deletion review" call on facts not in evidence. He notes the template was restored on DRV as as of 13:19, 15 February 2006 was a blue link. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway has engaged in repeated reversal of other admins' actions

16) Tony Sidaway has on several occasions repeatedly reversed the actions of other admins. Most notable of these are the the George Bush template re-deleted four times after restoration by three different admins [40] while debate was ongoing, and the Alliance of Catholic Wikipedians re-deleted seven times after restoration by five different admins [41] , also while deletion discussions were ongoing. The Arbitration Committee has stated that undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just starting to look over this case, but I don't see these in the evidence page. If there is a claim that wheel warred with (or "repeatedly reversed") others, can we have a clearly formatted section on the evidence page laying out each page/incident this happened, with links to the logs? Presenting original evidence on the workshop becomes cumbersome, and it's best to put it in one place first, and then move the pertinent stuff here. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See my proposed findings of fact 17 and 18, which give a more detailed analysis of the events and those involved. My response is that I acted in a manner proportionate to the danger to the encyclopedia, while explaining and defending my actions fully. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaaron states that this also goes to establish disregard for proposed principle 11: Respect, and that Crotalus' extreme actions should themselves be understood as a response to extreme behavior; questions Tony's justification. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

17 withdrawn --too wordy, the facts are all in evidence

17.1) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page many times as "not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality". The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The deletion debate was cut short and the page was deleted for the last time after three of the eight days normally allotted for discussion, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Evidence - Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony states that any disruption here was fully justified; that those who undeleted should be the ones to answer for their actions. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Nandesuka believes this finding is misleading about the magnitude of the action as well as Nicholas's role; Aaron proposes withdrawal. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

17.2) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page 7 times within a 24 hour period, in the process undoing the undeletion of five separate administrators. His stated reason was that the page was "not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The MfD discussion was closed and the page was deleted for the last time after three days, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Evidence - Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my comments on 17.1 above. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka believes this carifies the magnitude of the behavior and Nicholas's role. Aaron states that this is indicative of Tony's refusal to compromise, which lies at the heart of the case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template

18 withdrawn as too wordy--the facts are all in evidence

18.1) Tony Sidaway repeatedly deleted the userbox Template:User GWB on the grounds that it was an attack template and a multiple incitement to vandalism of the George W. Bush article. Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite also deleted this template, (See Evidence - Template:User GWB)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony suggests that the deletion of a template that incites vandalism requires no defence. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron proposes this be withdraw, that the other parties are a distraction. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable

19) Jimbo Wales has stated recently, on reviewing the contents of the Political beliefs userboxes page which had grown in size from 45 userboxes to 150 userboxes in six weeks, : "My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable." As project leader, he has intervened on at least three occasions on userboxes in less than four weeks: once to make a plea: "I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time"[42], a second time to resolve a serious wheel war involving a controversial userbox(pedophile userbox case), and more recently to revert the deletion of the newly created speedy deletion criterion, the T1 criterion for divisive and inflammatory templates [43] and to make a plea for "a thoughtful process of change" [44].

On wikien-l he has said " I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded" and "I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far." [45].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony expands to cite Jimbo's interventions. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Sjakkalle questions the interpreation of Jimbo's "not acceptable". Lar questions whather Tony's actions followed Jimbo's plea or went against it. Aaron proposes withdrawal based on the tea leaf divniation of interpreting Jimbo's words. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

It should also be pointed out that Jimbo has explicitly said he does not want people going on massive deletion sprees. That seems to be too often forgotten in all of this. Jimbo has also said more than once that what he does want is a discussion of the relevant issues. While it's clear he dislikes the current userbox situation, he simply does not hold the entrenched, hardline position many (starting with Ms Martin) have attributed to him. PurplePlatypus 05:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times

20) On December 27, 2005, during the course of the deletion debate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, in response to what he perceived as ongoing wheel warring by Tony Sidaway, Nandesuka undeleted the page three times, at 20:15, 20:54 and 23:31. At the time, the WP:MfD process was still ongoing, and was heading towards a consensus to delete. [46] and he stated at 20:17, in discussing his first undeletion, that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this," [47] and reprimanded Tony Sidaway for "cutting short the debate."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since I don't think Nandesuka and I will agree on wording, I've created an alternative below which I think is closer to the facts of the case and avoids what I consider to be weaseling. I also give the vote tally at the time he undeleted: 52-9. That's a massive consensus to delete by any standard. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka protests, as he is not a party; Aaron proposes withdrawal. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Nandesuka was not the only one who restored it [48]. I don't think anyone who did so was wrong (granted, I was one of them), nor is this terribly relevant to the case at hand, but if this is to be mentioned at all, it has to mention the others who did the same thing. It's completely unfair to to single him out.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete-withdrawn

20.1 withdrawn. Too wordy, facts are all in evidence.

[edit] Nandesuka engaged in pointless deletion warring

20.2) Despite an approximately 52-9 pile-on in favor of deletion, and admitting that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this", Nandesuka engaged in repetititve and pointless resurrection of a project page which had been deleted by Tony Sidaway because it was a direct attack on the neutrality policy, He did so because he believed in good faith that it was wrong to delete the article and Tony Sidaway was acting "out of process". (See Evidence - Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Redrafted and moved detail to evidence. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is reoved I shall request that a clerk or arbitrator restore it. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka and others protest as he is not a party; Ambi remarks that he is a party as he is involved with the facts of the case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Further comment - I support this wording. Nandesuka's intervention here is essential to this part of the case, so he needs to be named here. If he finds there to be a tension between being singled out in the evidence and not being a party to the case, he can resolve it by adding himself as a party to the case. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, I fully believe that Tony's tardy and post-hoc decision to add findings and remedies concerning me is a transparent (failing) attempt to punish me for vigorous participation on this very workshop page. Before I began participating, Tony raised none of the complaints about my administrative actions that he now claims are so urgent. He raised no serious allegations of inappropriateness before this point, and tried no other dispute resolution steps. It creates a terrible, terrible precedent to turn Workshop pages into tar babies, and I trust the Arbcom will see that doing so will chill participation in future cases. I have no intention of rewarding Tony's bad behavior by joining myself to this action. Nandesuka 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of this finding. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy on divisive user pages

21) A policy regarding divisive user pages has been proposed as a guideline, [[49]]. It would discourage "Facile labels, polarizing "bumper stickers", polemical user boxes, factionalism, and division" But encourage "Creative informative explanatory self-expression"

Comment by Arbitrators:

This guideline is seen by its promoters as dealing with a concern expressed by Jimbo. There is considerable criticism of the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Divisiveness.

This is an important finding of fact. Most important is that it is a proposed guideline regarding which there is considerable disagreement. If Tony has passed beyond advocacy of a position to enforcement of a policy which does not exist there is a problem. My impression is that if he did, he did so in good faith, but perhaps more attention to participating in policy making is called for rather than creating facts on the ground. Fred Bauder 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It seems to me that this case concerns how an administrator is supposed to act in a situation where there is no proper policy on a new and potentially damaging situation. .An administrator must never just sit on his hands impotently and fail to act simply because there is nothing written down and the rest of the community cannot make up its mind. I think that events show that my judgement is sound. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. Serves only to distract from other issues. - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that supports Tony was advocating this policy as opposed to (in earlier examples) his own strong feelings and (in later examples) his idiosyncratic interpretations of a hotly contested speedy deletion criterion. This page did not exist until 1 Feb, much of the action under debate took place well before that. Considering that it's seen very light editing and/or discussion compared to the T1 criterion, can you expand on why this page is relevent? - brenneman^{T}{L} 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy on userboxes

21.1) A policy on userboxes has been proposed and met wide approval. It specifically excludes transcluded userboxes for advocacy or declaration of a point of view, but otherwise allows userboxes for free expression including "language, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, and wiki-tasking (mediator etc.)." It would permit "templates that specify an interest in US politics, for example, but not membership or support of a particular party." Other userboxes would be permitted in the user namespace as long as they were included by substitution rather than transclusion. See Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A significant and very hopeful development. This policy proposal is now undergoing a straw poll and has 94-25-7 support. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron proposes withdrawal as it is tangential. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

... and 6 neutral: 45-11-6 would be more accurate. See, there are some shades of grey out there too. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathoschild's user project

22) Pathoschild (talk • contribs) is working to reduce conflict over userboxes by replacing the transclusion of deleted userbox templates in-situ by recovered wiki code. See User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes. Users for whom he performs this substitution react very positively [50], [51],[52].[53]. He also provides a self-service option so that users can come and obtain the code to paste into their own userpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Amazing stuff. See also how this relates to my own work on the matter. Pathoschild is fast becoming one of the most popular guys on the wiki. I'm sure that the significance of this will be clear to many of us who earnestly seek a resolution to this problem. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

David appreciates the idea. Aaron, Michael Ralston, and Nandesuka believe it irrelevant to the case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Wikipedia

23) In deleting a page still undergoing MfD 7 times in a 24 hour period, reversing the undeletions of 5 different administrators who were asking him to desist, Tony Sidaway's actions disrupted Wikipedia. Whether or not Tony Sidaway believed that his actions were correct does not make them any less disruptive, even if they were undertaken in good faith. See evidence Evidence - Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony believes this was not disruptive, and that if it was his judgment is too faulty for adminship. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

RfCs are evidence of disputes, not disruption. Nevertheless, if my actions have been disruptive, no doubt the arbitration committee will produce a relevant finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka believes this states the obvious; Jdavidb questions Tony's broad definition of "inflammatory"; Zero believes removing inflammatory material is never disruptive. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

This finding concentrates only on the most egregious disruption. Can we also have a more general "lots of disruption" finding? Perhaps one that mentions Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2, and the uncertified Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. We've already got one above that mentions the nascent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3a in my user space, after all. Putting this history in a "Timeline of Tony disruption" is better in some ways than focusing on only the worst instances. - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony was right, but his methods have sometimes upset people

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Wikipedia's goals and policies. However, some editors have justifiably expressed reasonable concerns about some of his methods.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am leaving this one out of the refactoring because it's still fresh. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see this intent of this, but I can't accept the wording "Tony was right". If someone wants to cobble together a proper finding of fact -- or two -- such as "articles x,y, and z which were speedy deleted by Tony have remained deleted and are now forbidden by policy X/settled on this consensus/etc., while articles a, b, and c which were recreated by Tony later were kept", and "Many other users found Tony's use of his administrative powers to be unnecessarily disruptive, to which his response was d, e, and f" with accompanying diffs. (Not that I couldn't and wouldn't just do this myself, but...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is the crux of the matter, clarifying and perhaps answering the point raised here by Fred Bauder on February 17:

"the question of whether, when he stipulates to the principle [that all users should be respectful of consensus], we ought to be engaging in our perfect hind-sight and applying strict disciplinary measure to an administrator who is presumed to have proceeded in good faith."

I submit that Fred and his fellow arbitrators now have in their possession ample evidence of my good faith, willingness to submit to consensus, respect for Wikipedia, constant engagement with the problems afflicting the decision-making process, and a very keen appreciation of the necessity of finding a solution with which we all can live. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Augmented as a result of input from Lar and Thsgrn, as endorsed by David Gerard and Megamanzero and Dalbury. This proposed finding of fact should have an accompanying remedy, but I leave the drafting of that to someone else. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, many of the comments below refer to Snowspinner's version, which read simply: "In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Wikipedia's goals and policies." --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This section has attracted a huge amount of comment, so I'm copying it to talk and refactoring slightly so that it can be discussed without messing up the workshop format. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts are in evidence, but not all of the evidence is public. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn. Fails to qualify what "vast majority" means, fails to assume good faith in that anyone else might also understand Wikipedia's goals and policies, does not adress questions raised, does not assist in moving towards a solution.
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconding Aaron Brenneman's proposal. Even if every last person were to stipulate it as true, it still wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Tony Sidaway either did wrong here or he did not. --Aaron 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So he can be found to be wrong, but can't be found to be right? I'm concerned by this, and more so by Mr. Brenneman's view that such a finding would be an insult to others, fail to address questions raised and fail to move towards a solution. It seems to me that most of this arbitration seeks to determine if any of Mr. Sidaway's actions conflict with Wikipedia's goals and/or policies. Is he necessarily guilty until proven innocent here? Or is this just a punishment phase?

I can see a valid objection behind "fails to qualify what vast majority means", but I'm not sure it invalidates this proposal entirely. A great deal of evidence has been heaped upon this case, it may not be possible to go through each and every action detailed on the evidence page to say, "Tony did right here" or "Tony did wrong here". This could provide a place to begin, either in its current form or reversed ("..Tony's decisions did not accurately..."), allowing the arbcom to focus on what they feel are significant examples or exemptions to the point.

I do not, nor do I think any of us, expect to see a final decision consisting of just this point and a message to run along and play. InkSplotch^(talk) 16:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it is facile and superficial. It also promotes a false duality, in that are only options are "Tony was right" or "Tony was wrong". This is just another in a series of proposals that have denied there exists the possibility for nuanced findings. It also presupposes a monolithic interpretation of "Wikipedia's goals and policies" and attempts to close debate over both these goals and Tony's actions. To even attempt to defend proposed finding this takes "assume good faith" beyond the limits of reason. We're all being so damn nice, can't we also be a bit honest at the same time?
brenneman^{T}{L} 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree. The merits of this proposed finding must be judged by the other findings it would be placed with. Right above this proposal is "Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Wikipedia" and the two needn't be mutually exclusive. This proposal states "In the vast majority of cases cited...", and could easily be modified by the presence of other findings like the one above.

Please don't let me strecth your good faith. I'm not attempting to justify this proposed finding's place on the final decision page, just this workshop page. I think it's a reasonable proposal for the accused to make, and the ArbCom can just as easily take his wording and add the words "did not" at a key juncture if they feel like. InkSplotch^(talk) 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to InkSplotch, actually I do expect the final decision will resemble this point alone. If Tony has strayed from being an exemplary editor in the matters mentioned here, it has been only in small human ways that are ridiculously far from being admonishable, let alone punishable. --Improv 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is entirely a matter of opinion, and is thus obviously innapropriate as a finding of fact.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• This seems to me as if it would fit better not as a finding of fact, but (slightly modified) as a remedy - with a wording akin to "Tony's actions with regards to userboxes are found to have been reasonable", and then add the appropriate quibbles. (Such as a combination of this and "Tony admonished on Consensus", a result that would indicate that Tony's actions were valid, but that in the future maybe he should be a bit more careful how he goes about performing similar actions.) Michael Ralston 02:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Bingo. This editor would not like to see Tony stop being an admin, or stop caring deeply about Wikipedia, or stop trying to solve problems in innovative ways, or stop generally being a helpful person. This editor would just like to see Tony acknowledge that others might justifiably have reasonable concerns about some of Tony's methods and promise to think a bit harder about whether there are other ways to acheive the same goals in future... and make the policy wonks a bit more comfy while not letting policy stand in the way of doing the Right Thing ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - David Gerard 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Support. -Zero^Talk 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Not the way I would have done it, but I think Tony acted in good faith, and I certainly agree that the situation was (and still is) a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, and that Tony's actions have moved us toward a resolution that has a good chance of preserving the NPOV principal in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: this provides cogent context to this case. Court cases have character testimonials, after all. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hm, not sure where to put this comment (as this sectioning is unwieldy), but I want to say that I think there is an important distinction to be made between "Tony was right" and "Tony acted in good faith". The latter is almost certainly true, but the former is a much more complex issue. To me, if his methods have upset people, that the act of that upsetting, even perhaps being disruptive, may make some of his actions more wrong than right. Or at least certainly not just right. I think what this is certainly getting at, and what I will support, and will probably propose, is something like "Tony has acted ::*Which carefully doesn't note who they were nor whether upsetting them was entirely irrelevant to the rightness of the actions ;-) Think of all the people Kelly upset deleting the copyright violations from their userboxes, even though she was dead right and they were jawdroppingly wrong - David Gerard 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Which totally ignores what was just said. If doing the "right" thing in a disruptive manner causes more many problems than doing it in a more sensitive way, it's no longer the "right" thing. This proposed section also seems to be glossing over something: the vast majority of administrators are "right" most of the time, or we'd take away their tools. There's no point stating that Tony was "right" when what we're really talking about was the disruption. It's trying to argue a point that's not being made, an almost classic straw man argument. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Does it mean that Tony as a person is right

• I am having trouble understanding what it means that "Tony was right". Does it meant that all the editors who disagreed with Tony were wrong? I don't think I can support that. Does it mean that his actions were "right"? Actions should be judged on their consequences. The consequences of his actions have been many, varied, complex, and ongoing, and thus difficult to judge. So I don't think I can support a blanket statement saying all his actions were right. Does it mean Tony had good intentions? While this is relevant to making a judgment about Tony's character, is that really relevant here? I don't think anyone is questioning Tony's character. And good intentions imply nothing about whether or not his actions were "right". Paul August ☎ 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• It means that a lot of us think that the userboxes that tony deleted needed to be deleted, that his actions have crystalized the debate, and that they have probably pushed us into a workable solution, the proposal at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, which seems to have gathered a real consensus. I was initially was taken aback by Tony's blunt methods, but in Tony's case, as in the RfC against Kelly Martin, I quickly realized that they were indeed doing the right thing to save Wikipedia from being dragged into a endless mire of POV-pushing. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This calls on facts not in evidence, note the word "probably". My strong contention is that Tony's actions greatly impeded finding a solution to the boxen "problem", and that his solution was far worse than the actual problem. If Tony submitted any policy proposals ot took part in working out meaningful compromise, I'm not aware of it. And can someone please refactor this and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Workshop#Tony_was_right.2C_but_his_methods_have_sometimes_upset_people back into a cohesive thread? - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree completely with Aaron and feel this should be withdrawn. This finding would give the impression that "being right" is an excuse for bad methodology, when that is definitely not the case. I suggest that it's very probable that the disruption that Tony's actions have caused have often been far greater than the original problems he was trying to resolve. Thus, this finding would only be clouding the issue. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Well if that's what it means, then that's what it should say. Paul August ☎ 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles

25) Tony Sidaway has undeleted the following articles, many of which were being discussed at VfU/DRV at the time of restoration, and often engaged in wheel wars in support of his undeletions (See Evidence). Where the undeletions were challenged he took them to AfD, despite being asked by multiple editors not to do so^{[citation needed]} . While Tony has at times participated in policy discussions around deletion review, he has in general declined to remain involved. Tony has engaged in an edit war over policy in preference to discussion.

• SuperOffice [54], Tally (accounting) [55] [56], Fiona Sit [57], Harry Shaw-Reynolds [58], Harry James Angus [59], Ollie McGill [60], Jules Pascoe [61], Aaron Karo [62], Charles Pellegrino [63], Marissa Siketa [64], Michael Viscardi [65], Jake Putnam [66], Sambit Bal [67], B C Joshi [68], Brian Brolly [69], Michael J. Skindell [70], Philotic Web [71], Stephen Mallinder [72], Brian Walters [73],, Albert M. Wolters [74], If Only Everything [75], Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey) [76], Amy Keating Rogers [77], DTE Energy Co. [78], Homa Sayar [79], Lakewood High School [80], Pejman Akbarzadeh [81]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A sample list of articles I undeleted, mostly without controversy. People make mistakes, I fix them. I have no problem with submitting those articles to consensus judgement on AfD, which is precisely what our undeletion policy says I should do. I tend to resist attempts to take the article to DRV because it isn't consensus-based and it tends to emphasize process and not content. Content is the reason we're all here, not playing silly bloody games. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Two responses to Pilatus:

Firstly I *drove* the discussion that led to Aaron's RfC, by announcing a minor change of my personal policy with respect to temporary undeletions; this change in my personal policy was met with very wide approval as a very commonsense move, and I welcome that. There were some extremely intransigent objectors who made a scene in WP:AN/I and were termed a "lynch mob" by at least two past and current arbitrators. I hope that those people are now as thoroughly ashamed of themselves as I was ashamed of them on Wikipedia's behalf.

Secondly you're right about Packages in Java (which I earlier listed here in error) but wrong about Marissa Siketa, Brian Brolly and Warren Benbow. Both of the latter articles are based wholly and completely on the originals. If someone can explain to my why it is disruptive to undelete an incorrectly deleted article that one needs for a rewrite, then they gave utterly failed to do so in the past six months. Brian Brolly in particular was a completely and utterly uncontroversial undeletion; the original was a bad A7 speedy. Marissa Siketa was undeleted and then kept as a redirect. Another utterly uncontroversial, everyday undeletion. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Aaron, I recall a lot of very hearty approval and do not recall saying "let's not" at any point. Indeed I am still very much in favor of the idea and I am sure that the consensus of Wikipedia is very, very much with me on this. I recall that he disapproved, but I do not need his permission to make up my mind on what is and is not a request for temporary undeletion. If there is doubt, I can always ask the person making the undeletion application to clarify. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I notice that Packages in Java was deleted on November 27. The earliest version currently in the history [82] is dated December 30, 2005. It would seem that the version discussed at and deleted by AfD was poor and AfD got it right. The same is true for Brian Brolly and Warren Benbow. Marissa Siketa is a redirect. The articles as they are now are complete rewrites; undeletion of the unfit versions from the history was unnecessary and disruptive. Pilatus 03:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Tony expresses dissatisfaction with the way WP:DRV works in his statement above. Yet in what led to the "RfC" in Aaron's user space he contributed very little to the discussion on WT:DRV. Pilatus 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The version of Brian Brolly that was deleted (log) [83] was a substub that wasn't even a complete sentence. Warren Benbow (log) was re-written; the deleted version has been removed from the history. What it must have looked like can be gleaned from the log, the first extant version [84] is a complete re-write. Marissa Siketa is a duplicate of the article at Marisa Siketa. Tony, you got the facts wrong. Pilatus 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as "[driving] the discussion by announcing a minor change of my personal policy with respect to temporary undeletions" goes, I haven't the faintest clue what "driving" a discussion means. To keep the peace here on the wiki there is no substitute for engaging in discussion when attempting to establish or change policy. [85] doesn't show much willingness to engage in discussion. Pilatus 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about undeletion, let's at least make Tony's contribution to policy formation clear: when asked to use discussion, he declined. - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also find it almost pathological to be terming a 7-4 straw poll and lengthy discussion resulting in "let's not" as "very wide approval". - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Tony recalls "hearty approval" for his undeletion policy and feels that the "consensus of Wikipedia is very, very much with [him]" he can haul out the diffs to support that assertion in the spirit of Wikipedia. If he can't, well, then it sounds like an advanced case of truthiness. Pilatus 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles (simple)

25.1) Tony Sidaway has undeleted many articles (See Evidence - Tony Sidaway has undeleted many articles often wheel warring in the process), for the most part without controversy. Where the undeletions were challenged he took them to AfD as required by the undeletion policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The original (25) has been edited to overload it with all kinds of opinionated nonsense. I provide this version, which is an attempt to provide one of the components that Mindspillage asked for in response to 24. Perhaps the overloaded stuff on 25 could be split out into a separate proposal. I love the "despite being asked not to" addendum to "took them to AfD."

I find it amusing that Pilatus continues to misrepresent the original Brian Brolly and Warren Benbow articles. The Brolly article in particular, far from being "not even a complete sentence", said the following (amongst others)

• Former CEO of Really Useful Theatre Company.
• Founder of Classic FM UK

Pilatus, you need glasses. We don't speedy articles with such claims to notability (and so easily verified, too!)

The original of the Benbow article was deleted after I rewrote solely because it was a copyright infringement, and only after this was discovered to be the case. It had originally been wrongly deleted as an A7. Get your facts right before you accuse others of getting them wrong. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So many bewildering, and of course completely baseless and false, statements are being made in response to this quite factual, straightforward proposal, that I'll just now let [[my evidence speak for itself. --Tony Sidaway 06:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This glosses over why some of Tony's restores caused controversy. Those that caused upset had been speedy-deleted, being of marginal quality and subsequently rewritten. Controversy arose not because the articles were rewritten but because Tony insisted to include the deleted versions in the article history. Pilatus 06:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The finding of fact numbered "25" is much better than this. This one is essentially a contentless piece of feel good fluff. Also, since the evidence section that Tony refers to contains not just the core diffs, but little editorial comments giving Tony's personal opinion as to how that diff should be interpreted, I'd say he has an extremely creative definition of the phrase "I'll just let my evidence speak for itself." The evidence link Tony provided was, in addition to this problem, missing a large number of relevant undeletions. I've fixed this defect by replacing it with a link to my more complete evidence section, which contains every diff that Tony's did, although not his editorial comments. I've also removed some clear misstatements of fact from the introduction (it is incorrect to imply that all of Tony's undeletions were kept, unless you conveniently omit all of those where they were not).Nandesuka 06:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway and undeletion (roughtest draft)

25.2) Tony Sidaway has a long history of opposition to the VfU/DRV venue. Has has often restored articles during discussion, often against strong opposition and without notification in the appropiate thread. His approach to changes in the application of the undeletion policy with regard to the change from "votes for undeletion" to "deletion review" was to edit war until blocked, despite having been asked to continue to take part in the discussion. More recently he attempted to change the practice around full restoration by fiat, and continued to restore articles to editing despite there being no consensus to do so, and once again in the face of strong opposition.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The above is pure opinion and is not supported by the evidence provided. In particular, the charge of edit warring over policy is categorically false. Secondly the stuff about "changing the practice" is nonsense; each individual administrator makes up his mind whether or not, and when, to perform temporary undeletions. Always has. --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Like this Arbitration needs another finding, really. But everytime Tony introduces another one, someone else is forced to introduce a parrallel one since Tony seems constitutionally unable to work with other editors. I thought that the point of these findings was that together people tried to make something that looked like what actually happened, as opposed to just carving out your own little piece of propaganda? Anyway, this finding goes to the principles "respect", "consensus", and "use of admin powers". It serves to demonstrate that the userbox fiasco was in part due to Tony's marked disavowal of consensual decision making in favour of unilateral and repeated actions. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway has undeleted many deleted articles (simple 2)

25.3) Tony Sidaway has permanently undeleted many articles (See Evidence- --undeletions, for the most part without controversy. Where the undeletions were challenged he took them to AfD as required by the undeletion policy,and they were kept.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nandesuka is welcome to his own unwieldy and contentious drafting. I'm sticking to the facts. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since there are numerous examples on the evidence page showing cases where Tony's undeletions were challenged and they were not kept, this finding of fact is simply untrue. That makes it a very inappropriate choice. Nandesuka 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be withdrawn as a red herring. The issue is with Tony's conduct when his undeletions were challenged. Pilatus 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Crotalus admonished on policy -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

[edit] Tony Sidaway admonished on use of adminstrator's powers

2) Tony Sidaway is admonished to be respectful of consensus in use of SysOp rights. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, this does not extend to essential housekeeping chores. It is no use to Wikipedia to have administrator actions that create unnecessary dissent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wording is rather eccentric, but there is the germ of a decent admonishment lurking beneath the surface. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems a quite likely outcome. Encouragment to ask question first and shoot later would save everyone a lot of trouble.
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kim comments that this destroys IAR, suggests "Tony Sidaway admonished to use common sense". Geni dissents, saying the the Right Thing is not always common sense. David worries that this removes room for reasonable admin judgment; Aaron suggests considering "unnecessary" disruption instead, Kim remarks that disruption is unavoidable.

• This definitely does seem restrictive. But I think it's got the right idea- Don't be reckless, more or less.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway to be desysopped

3) Tony Sidaway has repeatedly shown egregiously poor judgement as an administrator and is to be desysopped at the end of this case. If he wishes to apply for sysop powers again, he may do so after two months have passed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My personal preference is to keep this in for discussion; it's not that preposterous a notion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See proposed principle 12 and my comments in proposed findings of fact 17 and 18. The period is arbitrary; if I were asked to hand back my bit, I would be unlikely ever to want to apply for it again. Either my judgement is sound or it is not and (since I'm not a teenager any more) that is unlikely to change much over time. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Kim Bruning, Ral315 and MegamanZero object to this remedy, in whole or in part, as too stringent.

I've replaced this because it's been requested by the subject of this case, and because I feel it's a legitimate proposal made in good faith. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't support this proposal under any means, whether he gets his sysop bit back automatically or not. Ral315 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What he said. -Zero^Talk 15:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should Tony be desysopped. No way.--Alhutch 21:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose that this again be withdrawn. Not a single editor other than Tony appears to want this in. We've not a compelling argument for why it should go in other than Tony wants it in. The question is why is he so insistent that it be inserted? If the arbitration ArbCom wanted this as a remedy, they could insert it themselves. The "good faith" isn't the point: the utility of it is. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was serious about "...and because I feel it's a legitimate proposal..." If there is to be any justification for ignoring written policy, active discussions, and consensus, it must be for doing the "right thing." As much evidence as has been brought forth on Tony's actions, if his judgement for doing the right thing as an admin is in serious question, then I don't think this remedy is absurd. In the recent pedophelia case 5 admins were desysopped as a temporary injunction. In their arbcom case, multiple proposals for each admin were entered allowing for the return of admin privlages or not. I don't see how this is different. I imagine many of us don't want this to happen, but I want it to be considered. I want the arbcom to consider every reasonable remedy for this case, and I think this is a reasonable, albeit extreme, remedy. InkSplotch^(talk) 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. In that case I am happy to withdraw any objections to this proposal.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with InkSplotch especially per his example. I won't go so far as to say that I think this remedy should be used, but I certainly don't think it should be out of the question. I'd like to point out that a desysopping does not have to be permanent in any way; if Tony reapplied for adminship, he would most probably receive it, but the desysopping itself might be a far stronger reminder than a slap on the wrists. Considering much of this case is a result of Tony not listening to the opinions of others to begin with, I have a nagging concern that a mere censure would not get the point across. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• if Tony reapplied for adminship, he would most probably receive it. What a fascinating supposition. Now I think we should run the experiment just to find out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• If he wouldn't, as you seem to be suggesting, it would show a lack of community confidence in his adminship, in which case he probably shouldn't be an admin to begin with. I'm not quite sure as to why you're directing your sarcasm at me. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies. More elaborated here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• While I don't think this would pass (I would oppose it were I an arbitrator), there's no harm in letting it stay up for commenting and/or voting, in my opinion.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mindspillage. Paul August ☎ 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway to not undo any administrative action undertaken by another admin more than once in a seven day period

4) Tony Sidaway is forbidden from reversing any administrative actions on a particular item more than once per 7 day period. "Administrative actions on a particular item" here means, for example, deleting a specific page that has been restored. So if two pages, foo and bar had been restored by another admin, and Tony Sidaway had not performed the original deletion, he could delete those pages once each. If either of those pages was subsequently restored a second time, he would be enjoined from deleting it again for 7 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony calls for findings of fact in support of this, claiming that he only reverses especially poor admin decisions. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Nandesuka believes this addresses the main problem by forcing avenues other than wheel-warring; Improv believes any disruption has been justified by its ultimately beneficial effects. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I'd support this before outright desysopping. If some other admin overturned his action there are still channels available to address the issue. Many of them require that one discuss and seek consensus. Tony is very articulate and persuasive. "Especially poor decisions" is a judgement call, and if it's the correct judgement, others can easily be persuaded of it. But even this remedy may be going too far... ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is. Tony's judement is perfectly sound, and furthurmore, I think we would have to bashfully admit that most of his actions have stuck. This does not convince me of an proper addemedum. Absolutely not. -Zero^Talk 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

People often have lapses in judegement, myself included. This seems especially complicated to me- I don't think real restrictions are needed, just a tap on the shoulder reminding him that it's usually better to not piss people off unnecessarily.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka cautioned

5) WP:POINT. Nandesuka is cautioned to avoid using his sysop powers to express concern at the actions of others. If he believes that another sysop has done the right thing in the wrong way, he should explain why he thinks this is the wrong way, not do the wrong thing in retaliation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony stands by the proposal of this principle.

Comment by others:

Nandesuka objects to being mentioned without being named as a party; Aaron calls for the principle's withdrawal.

I don't see how this remedy is supported by the evidence. It assumes that Nandesuka thought that Tony had "done the right thing", which I doubt. If you do something in the "wrong way" then you are doing the wrong thing. It also assumes that Nandesuka's actions were done in "retaliation", for which I see no evidence. Moreover I don't see how this remedy is relevant to this case. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes limited

6) Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden. Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are unlimited. A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Draconian solution for a problem I'm not sure we have. I want to investigate the situation first, rather than jumping to this slash and burn solution. Fred Bauder 16:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See proposed finding of fact 21.1: Proposed policy on userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cutting the Gordian knot. de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess and (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars. The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors. Alternate version: The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration of this as policy. - David Gerard 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle questions ArbCom's right to set policy, David Gerard points out this proposal only suggests a policy change to Jimbo.

David Gerard acknoledges this proposal could be written better.

David Gerard, Geni, and Septentrionalis discuss how to define "spoken human languages" within the terms of the policy.

refactored InkSplotch^(talk) 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following findings of principle:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a webhost or a soapbox (surely an existing policy)
2. Wikipedia template space and transclusion exist only to serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. (no much of a stretch)
3. Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. (again this is policy - single use templates are usually subst and deleted on TfD).
4. NPOV is non-negotiable 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates' - Jimbo Wales.
5. Userboxes existing in the template space should be those useful to the progect. e.g. declaring a relevant skill, speciality, geographical focus, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring templates have no place here. (again I'd say this is existing policy - WP:TfD indicates that POV is a reason to delete a template - a fact that is being ignored.)

(This declairation would include templates for: languages, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, wiki-tasking (RC patroller, mediator etc).... 'Editing interest' would allow templates, for example, 'user interested in US politics' but not 'user democrat'; 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer'; 'user abortion debates' but not 'pro-life'; 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-.) --Doc ^ask? 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Lar, Doc and David Gerard discuss the applicability of NPOV to userspace.

I've replaced this because it's been requested by the subject of this case, and because I feel it's a legitimate proposal made in good faith. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been overtaken by events. An actual policy porposal is underway and gathering broad discussion and general support. This is now just taking up space. Can we not be a little bit pragmatic here, as opposed to humoring people? - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathoschild commended

7) Pathoschild is commended for his practical, efficient and popular work to reduce conflict at a time of uncertainty about Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tony links this to FoF 22. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Aaron calls for withdrawal as tangential. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

• He should be commended (in fact, here are some cupcakes), but this has otherwise nothing to do with the case at hand.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned

8) For disrupting Wikipedia, Tony Sidaway is banned for one month. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from the more lurid allegations raised by various parties. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I think I should be banned for a bit if I've had a disruptive effect rather than, as I firmly believe, an overwhelmingly beneficial one. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify for User:Fubar Obfusco, yes I do think that disruptive users should sometimes be banned, and I support a ban for myself if I have harmed Wikipedia. This is something that I want the Committee to consider. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why are you proposing banning yourself? Do you want to be banned? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tony: But we'll miss you for a whole month. Couldn't you set it to three weeks, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 15 seconds? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a WP:POINT violation to propose something you don't want, in order to make a point? --FOo 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the workshop works. It exists to hammer out possible solutions to the problem at hand, and anyone can contribute. Tony may not want to be banned, but he may feel that if the community/arbcom decides he is wrong, he deserves to be banned. Johnleemk | Talk 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, that stretches the bounds of assuming good faith far beyond what is reasonable. We're all striving to be polite and civil, but we should also strive to be frank. Tony has suggested at least three times on this page that he be deadminned. No one other than Tony has voiced a skerrick of approval for this suggestion. One of these times reads very much like a threat to step down if findings are not only passed against him but even receive a lower level of support. To deny that suggesting that he be banned is anything other than melodrama is disingenuous in the extreme. We have to act civil, but we don't have to act pithed.
brenneman^{T}{L} 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, anything on the workshop nobody ever commented on isn't supported. For all we know, the arbitrators could be nodding their heads on the mailing list saying, "Yes, Tony should be desysoped". (Of course that's rather unlikely, but whatever.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced this because it's been requested by the subject of this case, and because I feel it's a legitimate proposal made in good faith. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal, etc etc, pointles, etc etc, unsupported, etc etc, why etc etc. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that this proposal (perhaps even along with Tony's urging of desysopping), is an attempt to give an impression of martyrdom. Tony's history in the past of referring to procedures such as this as a "lynch mob" (I can't be bothered to find the dif, but I'm sure if someone wants it, someone else has it; I know he's used that terminology in IRC) only reinforces that notion to me. In response to Johnleemk, while a proposal that gets no support is certainly not necessarily bad faith, I feel that a proposal that is offered with no intention of being a plausible remedy is. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So how do you demonstrate that this proposed remedy was "...offered with no intention of being a plausible remedy..."? I believe the discussions of lynching you're thinking of are here. It's a bit of a read, but well worth it. InkSplotch^(talk) 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, InkSplotch; it would be hard to concretely demonstrate that, and WP:AGF is probably applicable here. However, as Aaron indicated above, there are bounds to what can reasonably be assumed to be in good faith. While the desysopping seems to actually be in play (however unlikely), I strongly doubt that anyone, Tony included, actually sees a month ban as a just, or even useful remedy, thus my nagging concern that some other motive is at play here. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are bounds, but it's up to each individual to decide what their's are. In other words, it's still a matter of opinion if someone can WP:AGF here or not. Aaron has indictaed his ability to do so with Tony was stretched thin long ago. As far as the ban itself, I've seen recent cases ask for anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months, with 1 year being the most extreme shy of an indefinite ban. InkSplotch^(talk) 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway admonished on consensus

9) Tony Sidaway admonished to demonstrate greater respect for consensus, and he is reminded that wikipedia is built upon the spirit of compromise. He is further encouraged to seek outcomes arrived at through mutual concession. Working in accord with other contributors is expected of all editors, and particularly of adminstrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Superfluous because disregard for consensus has not been demonstrated. The wording also suggests that consensus is about mutual concessions (aka death of 1000 cuts) which if accepted would be a license to trolls. Rather, it's about identifying and answering genuine problems through dialog. The committee is in possession of ample evidence of my ability and willingness to address problems constructively in a manner that strikes through apparent divisions to produce consensus. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Follows from the conduct demonstrated on this page and the other events in question. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony says white. Aaron says black. The truth here, IMHO, is gray. Out of process deletions may or may not "produce consensus", and being right in the end (we do seem to be getting to a great outcome here on the great Userbox debate) is not a blanket free pass, because the end does not justify the means. Pointing this out (repeatedly, sorry, but it bears repeating) does not diminish my deep respect for either Tony or Aaron but I do wish both of them would acknowledge grayness more readily. An admonishment seems appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? I think this is the first thing that you've ever said that I objected to. I am contstantly hammering this point home, that Tony sees everything black and white, and that I call for nuance and discussion. I reject utterly a suggestion otherwise. I've struggled constantly on this page to remove positions like "Tony was right" and I'd point out that I haven't put in positions like "Tony was wrong". Sorry Lar, but no no and no. Misconstrues my position terribly. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bad example. Stricken. If one reads through this case and others, you and Tony are often on opposite sides but it's not fair to use you as an example of nonnuancabilty that way. The point I'm trying to make is that I think Tony does sometimes see things as black and white when they are actually grey, not to cast aspersions on your ability to find the middle. Drop me a note on my talk page saying OK, and I'll strike this whole subthread and try again. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not superfluous. Tony has said some things that I would interpret to be stating that even if consensus was obtained that certain types of userboxes were acceptable, and Jimbo concured, he would still delete them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) Write proposed enforcement here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am very disturbed by the progress of this Arbitration to date. The course of the proceedings have been straightjacketed both by the preponderance of material contributed by a single editors, and the selective editing of the page. There is no urgency here, this is a collective page. Removing, or "moving" with no indication left behind, could be seen as attempts to colour the proceedings. I'd ask all involved to use a bit more caution. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think Tony is simply trying to get the findings-of-fact to conform to what ArbCom typically produces, something he knows as much about as almost anyone. I think it would be a good idea for him not to do such editing in this case, but I also think implying that he's somehow manipulating the proceedings is unhelpful. -- SCZenz 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be frank I also am trying to "manipulate" the proceedings. I simply feel that the methods chosen to do so should be as equitable and transparent as possible. The combination of almost 70% of the edits being by Tony and the repreated removal of material placed by others begins to make it very difficult for this to proceed in a way which will result in an unbiased outcome. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not doing anything that isn't sensible, and obviously you're watching him, so you can restore anything that ought to be here. You've not given any rationale for why him cleaning up the page would bias the proceedings--only that it looks bad. -- SCZenz 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Should people's signed comments be "junked" in this manner? - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think not but I could be wrong. It seems a bit "out of process" for a clerk to do that, much less a party... Perhaps an ArbComm member directed him to do it? ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You are all welcome to advocate your positions on this page. That is what it is for. Fred Bauder 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In the diff Aaron refers to, I think an entire section (Findings of Fact 20.1 "Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete") was removed. It was removed by the person who proposed it, I think (although I could be wrong about that, would have to wade through the history to find it) but the removal also removed comments by others. Hence my question, I would think that unless ArbComm so directed (it does reserve the right to refactor as necessary) it would be an out of process deletion, as it were... ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it was my choice to remove it and I didn't think about the signed comments because they were associated with the motion that I withdrew. Aaron remembered the technque that I used in the webcomics case, and moved a copy of the withdrawn motion to a "withdrawn" page. The Committee definitely does not endorse the removal that I carried out (which was a faux pas for which I apologise). --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem then! May I suggest that a stub be left behind as in that case with a link to the Withdrawn page? That might reduce confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This case was brought by a querulous user as being about userboxes. (Note that the user in question, having started a shitfight, has not been seen since on the case they brought as a personal issue.) The workshop was promptly dived upon by those who seem to consider themselves AFD/DRV partisans and process fans.

As it stands, it's essentially concerned with these secondary issues, and is an exercise in wiki politics - make no mistake, every principle, FoF and remedy will be interpreted, misinterpreted and bent out of shape in pursuit of this battle and arbitrators should at no point pretend they won't be.

I suggest either:

1. Cut the case right back to Crotalus horridus and userboxes;
2. Expand it to include the full AFD/DRV/process issues the workshop is actually about, including all the people involved with that.

When considering the case, don't pretend this isn't all about wikipolitics - that would be an example of pursuing process with no regard for the actual results. - David Gerard 08:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have tried to focus primarily on editing the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to respond here to David's statement, which I feel assumes bad faith on my part. I do not consider myself a "querulous user", although I am willing to stand up when I believe that things are being done wrong. Nor do I think that this RFAr is a "shitfight" - it has, so far, been a serious consideration of the facts, behaviors, and policies involved. The reason that I haven't entered evidence beyond the initial complaint is that the facts aren't really in dispute - the question is how far CSD T1 goes, and, more broadly, whether process is important or whether it's OK for admins to ignore all rules. It's not like I'm claiming Tony deleted stuff and Tony denied that. We all agree that Tony has deleted various userboxes under CSD T1, and that others have objected to this behavior. The question is whether this behavior was right or wrong. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• This was accepted to examine behaviors and that's exactly what's being done. - brenneman^{T}{L} 10:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sure the Committee knows what this case is about, David, though your reminder may prove timely for others editing this page. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• I find David's remarks unhelpful. The accusation that Crotalus horridus is a "querulous" user, whose motives (along with others) are merely political, is simply an ad hominem attack, and as such, it implies nothing about the merits of this case. — Paul August ☎ 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• The facts of the Crotalus case are in evidence. Crotalus (and you) have misread David's comments, which are directed at "those who seem to consider themselves AFD/DRV partisans and process fans", who have sought to exploit this case for wikipolitical advantage, attempting in the process to blacken my reputation for fairness and good judgement and, in some cases, to make naked, unashamed, baseless accusations of dishonesty. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• The ad hominem nature of David's description of Crotalus, and of the other participants in this workshop, a few paragraphs above this one, is plain on its face. Tony's interpretation of that description requires more contortions than any reasonable editor should need to make. While I may believe that some users have undertaken improper actions, or made untenable, incorrect, or simply counterfactual statements, I don't believe that there is anyone participating in this workshop who is motivated by anything other than good faith, and to make such accusations that they are is as incorrect as it is intemperate. The arbitrators, rest assured, will decide for themselves which of us is misreading his comments -- and, more to the point, which principles and remedies arguments are reasonable inferences from the evidence, and which are attempts to distract and cloud the issues. Nandesuka 13:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• If David did not mean to include Crotalus as one of those whose motives are political — and I now see now how it could be read that way — then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Nevertheless he did describe Crotalus as "querulous", and he did question the motives of other (unnamed) editors, both of which are ad hominem and in my opinion unhelpful. By the way I am not one of those who think that all criticisms (personal or otherwise) of fellow editors is always a bad thing. And I think it is entirely possible that some editors motives in this case are unhelpful, and it could be useful to point that out. But it seems to me that if you are going to question peoples motives you should do so by name. Otherwise, you tar everyone with the same brush. For example, I would like to know if I need to defend myself from David's (and now Tony's) accusations? I'm sure many other editor would like to know as well. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word Smog -withdrawn

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn.