Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Transparency 2 Odd proposals 3 3.2.6 Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others 4 Proposed Remedies 5 Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR 6 Proposed Crotalus remedies 7 Concerns about remedy 8 This remedy is likely to be counterproductive 9 In defence of Crotalus 10 "Polemical" and proposed prinicple #7 11 Notes on proposed decision 12 Comment by Crotalus on proposed remedies 13 My personal view 14 The T1 speedy deletion criterion and Crotalus horridus 15 Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

[edit] Transparency

Where was the discussion that led to these items being placed here? - brenneman^{T}{L} 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just been (quietly I suppose) reading the evidence and watching the workshop, and decided to move over the obvious/relevant ones. If you have any objections, you can still say so (though principle shouldn't usally be very controversial). There wasn't any private mailing list/IRC/cabal smoke signal discussion that led to it. Dmcdevit·t 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww, how am I meant to rage against the machine when you give sensible and prompt answers? Are you trying to spoil my fun? ;P

• I'd say that the "jimbo makes the rules" and "Assume good faith" are both in the category of "unarguable but no consensus that they are relevent". Both are ambiguious, and to my mind distract from the issues under examination. I don't think that either if these are in question enough that we need them in as proposed decisions. Back to workshop?
• The "disruption" one seems to have popped fully formed from the head of minerva. Could this be removed and taken to the workshop page? Quite a bit of the meat of this is about what contitutes disruption, and how to handle it. For example, could another admin have blocked Tony for disruption the third time he deleted ACoW? And NDk the third time he restored it?

Thanks for being responsive. I'm really pleased to see that there is involvement in this discussion by the arbitrators. If I don't have to have the decoder ring to know, what's the "voting starts now" threshold and will we get some warning to get our rows into the duck?
brenneman^{T}{L} 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I find the Jimbo as a policymaker principle relevant with regards to T1, and the disregard some have shown to it (disagreement is fine, but until it is overturned, violation is not). While I'm sure some part/most of the disagreement may be over interpretation, this is still valid. As to assume good faith: I think it's relevant to all sectors of this conflict, both in the way some have been treating others, and in the wheel warring (which I think in large part develops from lack of AGF, ie: one admin decides to reverse another admin's decision without discussion or outside consensus-seeking, often because they assume the other is wrong without giving them the benefit of discretion and trust in good judgment the community has awarded them.).
• Disruption: There was a WP:POINT proposal, but the "to make a point" part was rightly challenged. This kind of wording on general disruption is a common one, and the first clause is based on WP:BP#Disruption, and just common practice. It could apply to any of the parties here who were disruptive, and there was certainly some disruption (but I haven't made a finding of fact saying any particular one was disruptive yet!). Sure "what is disruption" is an issue, but it is in any case; those blocks are controversial and usually require discussion, so I cant really say right now if either should have been blocked then now, and if it's an arbcom action due to disruption we are talking about, it will be based upon a finding of fact as well. You are welcome to list this on the workshop as well to solicit comment.

Voting starts as soon as all the arbitrators' proposals are made and they begin to vote (er...), though proposals are frequently made afterwards, too. Basically, when it looks done. You can watch Template:ArbComOpenTasks to see when it's moved to voting. Dmcdevit·t 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This was a masterful example of saying "no" to everything while appearing to address my concerns! Seriously though, thanks again for the prompt reply. I've added the template to my watchlist, and I'll move "disruption" to the workshop page for er, workshopping. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron on this point. Perhaps he would like to backport that one to the workshop and we can discuss it there. I don't see where it fits into this case because obviously nobody has been blocked and that whole administrator discretion thing is just wrong when applied to blocking anything other than vandals. If I block someone you'll most likely read about it on WP:AN where I will typically spend anything from 5-20 minutes explaining why this person who could be making good edits on Wikipedia is currently unable to do so, and I don't think that's unreasonable. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd proposals

What happens when someone puts something, umm, odd on the proposed page? Suppose I proposed a remedy "Brenneman banned from running for ArbCom next year". Would it just be ignored, or would it get lots of "oppose" votes that later would allow me to say "I've got support in my running for ArbCom from the standing members"? - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Only arbitrators and (unrecused) clerks may edit that page. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Suppose I insist on the workshop page for an odd or unlikely decision. Suppose a clerk then decided, since I was insisting, to add it to the page... now insert question above. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only arbitrators edit this page for non-janitorial reasons. A clerk never makes any proposals that the arbitrators vote on. So, yes, an arbitrator can propose something, but if it is odd like that, expect it to fail (unless you think that's the kind of people we are, in which case, expect it not to, I guess :) Dmcdevit·t 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, basically if a clerk added silly stuff to a proposals page he wouldn't be much of a clerk. The arbitrators decide what they want to vote on, and (unless he's a former arbitrator) a clerk know no more about their private discussions than any other editor. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3.2.6 Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others

This seems a bit of a stretch. Clearly there are some reasons to doubt Tony's good faith, or otherwise rational people wouldn't be doing so. I'd think that the quasi-RfC alone would have been enough: "Hey, in order to forestall an RfC I'll say this." "Hey, I never said that." Could we get this changed to something less hand-wavy? - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's impossible to say there's no reason at all, considering where we are, but I don't think there's a good one. I changed the wording to say "no substantial reason", though ths probably isn't what you had in mind. Also note that not everything that was a part of the RFC(s) has become a part of this arbitration, notably civility; and this wording is only supposed to refer to those actions which were presented in evidence. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the evidence page isn't really complete. Thanks largely to the unholy amount of verbage on the workshop page, I haven't put much into that page. We're not in any rush, so why can't we hold off voting for a few days at least? - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't foresee any plausibly different set of proposals, even with additional evidence. The major issues have been addressed, and I can't imagine any evidence that would make me want to retract any of these proposals. Conversely, I don't see any other issues that rise to the level of inclusion in arbitration. Sure there are other issues and an infinitely wide potential scope, but I think the current scope fits the case best, and if passed, will solve the pressing issues in both of the editors involved. Of course, keep in mind that the "voting" process is fluid and many if not most cases are modified and see additional proposals while voting. Especially because it doesn't close until the motion passes, so an arbitrator can stop closure until all issues are addressed. I don't actually know how others will vote, so wrangling frequently occurs when things pop up; this isn't like an end to the evidence/workshop arenas. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mu only other experiance with this, the voting stage seemed very fast. I just wanted to make sure I had time to adress the existing proposals in my evidence. - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it's only a finding of fact - i.e., what the arbcom decides (through voting) is or is not a fact important to this case. It's not a principle, which is more like a fact whether anyone agrees or not. Mind you, maybe I'm just not sure I see what's "hand-wavy" about it. InkSplotch^(talk) 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - it looks like FoF#4 and FoF#5 contradict each other. Is it possible to say that a user who is wheel warring (repeating the same action 5 or 8 times on some occasions) is still acting in good faith? Does it mean that the people who reverted Tony Sidaway's actions were acting in bad faith? Does it mean edit warring is possible in good faith? (I don't have any right to demand answers, as I'm not involved in this, but it'd be nice if someone provided an explanation.) Conscious 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at your questions here, but note I'm not officially involved either, so it's my own interpretations. To say a user was wheel warring, yet acting in good faith, simply indicates that user did not consider their wheel warring "unacceptable" at the time...or at least that it didn't outweigh the need to do what was right. It also doesn't mean the people acting in opposition were necessarily acting in bad faith either. They likly felt much the same way. The important thing to realize, is that acting in good faith doesn't equate to doing what's right.

Then, however, you ask if it's possible to edit war in good faith. I suspect a lot of admins (not just the ones in this case) feel there are certain times when "what's right" is more important that process. Well, despite both sides feeling they're acting in the best interests of wikipedia or consensus, ultimatly one side or the other will be found to be "in the right." There is not a finding of fact to suggest whether edit warring in good faith gets an exemption, but the fact that proposed remedies surrounding Tony don't seem to be garnering overwhelming support might indicate that it's a mitigating factor.

Looking at things now, then general feeling that I'm getting is that they view his actions as correct, the wheel warring was bad, and that they'd like to see more attempts at other ways of resolving conflict first. Since Jimbo is the only one I've seen able to completly stop a wheel war, I don't imagine this means "it'll never happen again", but I think there's a strong message here to everyone that it's unacceptable and to try and avoid it.

InkSplotch^(talk) 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all wheel wars are like that: all admins want to do the best for Wikipedia, and sometimes their opinions on what's best differ. If some admins then choose to ignore all rules, we have a wheel war.

My doubts are about the "good faith" in the FoF. You can do a revert in good faith, possibly two or three, but hardly more. Something like "has intended to act for the best of Wikipedia" could be a better wording.

BTW, I'm getting the same feeling about ArbCom's opinion, and it'd be a change in attitude towards wheel warring (some time ago a case submitted by Radiant! wasn't even accepted).

May this case run smoothly (and don't worry about an outsider's grumbling). Conscious 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You can do a revert in good faith, possibly two or three, but hardly more. I think we could still pick this apart further, though. Against the same editor, yes, you're warring...but against 2? 3? More? Wikipedia is large enough now, often admins act before knowing everyone that's involved. Honestly, the biggest change I've seen among most admins in the past 3 months, is increased comminications...posting on affected talk pages, individual user talk pages, and especially AN and AN/I. Still, it only helps when their fellow admins read AN or AN/I before acting.

And I agree that attitudes are changing, but I don't think we're done yet. Radiant's case wasn't accepted because, on that individual instance, the outcome outweighed the warring. While admin warring has become more prevelant, and therefore more important to address, the other issues there are also coming to a head. I'm hoping that will be address in the newest arbcom case for Mark Sweep, Guantanamo, et. al.

InkSplotch^(talk) 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedies

Just wondering...Croatlus' Userbox remedy has no duration (his general probation is indefinite), and Tony's remedy has no duration, or enforcement measures (blocks, bans, so forth). While a duration qualifier may not be necessary (I would assume "indefinite" is implied), shouldn't Tony's remedy at least have enforcement measures in place before too much voting goes on? InkSplotch^(talk) 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, a good point, and one that will require a bit more pondering before I (or some other arbitrator, please!) put it up. :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR

Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Ok, does this mean both if someone else deletes something and Tony restores it and if someone else restores something and Tony deletes it? - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems unambiguous to me: "any administrative action." Nandesuka 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that means both. (And the examples of wheel warring include both deletions and undeletions, so it follows.) Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This one's kind of confusing, and to add on to Aaron's question, is DRV the place to go in both disputes (where an item has been restores, as is currently there, and where an item is deleted and currently not there)? (And Aaron, I'd say the answer to yours is "yes"...as worded, it would apply to any administrative action, including blocks, possibly reverts...it's open ended) InkSplotch^(talk) 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S., I point this out not to be difficult, but to hopefully avoid trouble down the road. From what I've seen in this case, there have been disagreements in the past as to what the appropriate venue is for disputed deletions/restorations (AFD or DRV). InkSplotch^(talk) 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring an item that has been deleted by another admin constitutes a contested deletion, and under normal circumstances (barring obvious exceptions), it does indeed make sense to take it to DRV for review and consensus-seeking. Deleting an item that has been restored by another admin constitutes a contested deletion, and under normal circumstances (barring obvious exceptions), it also does indeed make sense to take it to DRV for review and consensus-seeking. This is just good sense. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my interpretation:

For deletions, it means that I should follow the same practice I set up in the case of userbox deletions, where I would delete some userboxes and take them to DRV, giving a fully itemized description of the reason for deletion as I did in that case. Effectively it's endorsing this procedure (which I didn't always follow as fully) as good practise, and requiring me in particular to follow it where the deletion involves reversing an undeletion made by another administrator.

For undeletions of bad speedies, it would mean notifying the original administrator as here. For undeletions of articles listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review, it would mean writing up the undeletion on that forum as I did here. For undeletions of articles wrongly speedied while at AfD (it does happen), it would mean writing up the undeletion on the AfD discussion or its talk page.

For reversals of blocks or unblocks, it would mean writing it up on WP:AN or whereever else the discussion was being held, already my current practise as here and here.

Protections and unprotections are intended to by manually expired so if this proposed remedy is adopted I'll ask the Committee to clarify, but I don't expect my normal practice of expiring vandal protections without comment after three days or more to be a problem. Nor my regular unprotections and restorations of semiprotection on George W. Bush.

For general admin practise, it's saying what we all know: in the light of the pedophile userbox case, none of us gets away with multiple admin reversals, and I (as the person who has made the most use of admin reversals) would be required to do it just once. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On frequency, I'd expect it to apply as follows:

• Once per article to deletions and undeletions, history undeletions and temporary undeletions exempted.
• Once per protection cycle on article protections
• Once per blocking incident on blockings.
  • if X gets blocked and I modify the block (cf the Nicodemus block above) I would be on 1RR for that period. A week or so down the line the same user is blocked in a different case, it doesn't make sense to lump that in with the original.
  • AlthoughI haven't done so, I'm empowered as a mentor to modify or anull blocks on Cool Cat. I would expect actions taken in this capacity to be exempt. As a matter of good practise and encouraging community involvement, I always write up Cool Cat mentorship actions both on WP:AN/I and his mentorship page. There have only been two such actions so far. --Tony Sidaway 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of this, some quibbles:

• I've heard this from others as well and think it needs clarification. It's not "in the light of the pedophile userbox case" that none of us gets away with multiple admin reversals, but in light of the same principles of consensus and dispute resolution that led us before that incident, and led us to that ruling (which, I might point out, imposed real restrictions on wheel warriors, and wasn't in light of the pedophile userbox case).
• This 1RR, like the general 3RR, is emphatically not an entitlement to one reversal. I will stress that you are still strongly encouraged (except in the case of obvious exceptions) to discuss an admin's contested action and seek consensus/dispute resolution before any reversal at all. You aren't applying the 1RR by making one reversal and stopping there, rather you would be bound by the 1RR by not making more than ine reversal. So, while you are within bounds to unspeedy and tehn notify the speedier, I still wouldn't necessarily recommend that method.
• (not a quibble) What you say about protection is commonsensical, and I don't expect admins to try to enforce this against ordinary protections or unprotections. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony writes:

"For deletions, it means that I should follow the same practice I set up in the case of userbox deletions [...] [e]ffectively it's endorsing this procedure." Emphasis mine.

I'd like it to be made explicit that this is not an edorsement of this method. Tony, like all other admins, should be expected to follow existing policies. If there are chages to the speedy deletion critria he'd like to see, he should propose and discuss those policies.

brenneman^{T}{L} 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone sees this as endorsing any particular speedy delete policy, just the implementation of it. If the arbcom wants to address userbox speedies, they will. Otherwise, this is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of that policy. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to DmcDevit, I take on board that 1RR isn't a statement of entitlement. I'd be a fool to walk away from this arbitration case, should this proposed remedy pass, with the intention of engaging in numerous singleton reversals of the actions of other sysops. My comment "in the light of the pedophile userbox case" refers specifically to the reaction of all sysops to the findings in that case. The dampening effect on wheel warring was immediate and seems likely to be sustained. As I've said before, arbcom has changed the playing field and it is no longer likely that admins will engage in deletions in order to hamper straightforward undeletions of bad speedies or to prevent them being taken to AfD. For instance Geogre would not have risked wheel warring in the Homa Sayar, Warren Benbow and Monique deMoan cases, and the AfDs, all of which had strong keep votes, would have been straightforward and unhampered by administrator interference with the process of consensus-formation.

I would expect administrators, if this remedy passed, to adopt a commonsense attitude, and I would be quick to bring abuses of it to the Committee's attention. It should never be used to hamper normal sysop activities such as temporary undeletions and history undeletions (which should always be clearly identified as such) routine protections, unprotections and the like, where one is necessarily, for a short period, changing a state previously set by another administrator.

In response to Aaron Brenneman, the issue here is what a sysop is to do when there is no clear policy. I firmly believe that sitting on one's hands and talking about the problem is the wrong way to go. Administrators should be trusted to use their commonsense. This doesn't mean that the administrator does not have to discuss his actions (I've certainly done enough of that) but it does mean that he's entitled to a bit of latitude when faced with a serious problem for which previous events have not prepared the community. In the case I'm talking about, he seems to be unaware that at the same time I was performing test speedies to be reviewed at deletion review, I was also discussing an attack speedy criterion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and there was substantial agreement on that proposed policy. Indeed my engagement on the userbox issue in policy making has been constant, a fact of which the Committee is well aware.

The documentation clause is very much in line with my own practices, as I indicate with specific examples in every single case in my first response here. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The more Tony talks, the more concerned I am. Both of these responses seem determined to convert this into either approval of Tony's actions or just a small part of a general change in climate. In particular, the reference to Geogre's "wheel warring" appears at odds with the fact that Tony will be (if this passes) the only administrator on 1RR restriction. While my straightforwardness would indicate that some "admonishment" is tacit in this finding, perhaps some of the other remedies would make it explicit. Although this may seem like overkill, previous examples show that even things that appear utterly pellucid sometimes are, um, different when it comes to Tony's iconoclastic interpretation.
brenneman^{T}{L} 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Crotalus remedies

I think that the proposed Crotalus remedies are unnecessary. He's just your basic good productive editor as can be seen from his contribution log. Placing him on probation is completely unnecessary. Banning him for creating userboxes is even less necessary; he hasn't even edited one in quite some time. (I have nothing intelligent to say on the proposed Tony remedy.) Haukur 23:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Really it seems to me that Crotalus has done nothing except be a person on the learning curve that we all follow, at a particularly sensitive point in Wikipedia's history. I've looked good and hard at his edits and I see no reason for any remedies concerning him. He called out a controversial administrator, and that definitely isn't a bad thing. He made some edits that, as experienced Wikipedians, some of us would have thought better of. I don't doubt his good faith for one moment and, although I have severe worries about his userfication project, he obviously meant well. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, Tony, and for your statements here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about remedy

I'm concerned about Dmcdevit's proposed remedy, "Crotalus horridus banned from userboxes". I'm especially concerned about the "either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage" clause. If implemented, this would prevent me from editing my own user page, even though no one has ever claimed that this page or any of its content was disruptive. (You can check it out if you want - it contains nothing that I can think would cause controversy or strife in the community.) I don't edit it all that often, but I do not want to have to have it forever frozen in its present form. Also, I'm curious as to what behavior on my part was considered so disruptive that an indefinite, general probation would be justified. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that your sum actions in this case were to act as a stalking horse, bringing the case then disappearing from it, make the assumption of your good faith a heroic act - David Gerard 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a Catch-22. If I had spent all my time and effort focusing on the case since it was opened, then you would be accusing me of being obsessed with getting Tony and with ignoring the important aspects of the encyclopedia. The fact is that the evidence has been presented more than adequately by other parties - as stated, we all agree Tony did controversial deletions, the only question is whether that broke the rules or not. I felt it was a more productive use of my time to edit encyclopedia articles. Isn't that what the "product over process" crowd wants anyway? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This remedy is likely to be counterproductive

Note that the stuff on the workshop is nothing to do with Crotalus and userboxes, but the penalties seem to take it into account without bringing to account the parties involved directly in it, who were posting about it on the workshop. And that Crotalus essentially abandoned the case after it had been accepted.

The penalties in this case are about to take into account all the crap on the workshop even though it's none of it to do with the stalking horse, who disappeared without trace as soon as the case was accepted so the process fans could move in. And of course say "but we're not in this case!" whenever it was pointed out they were involved in the stuff they bring up. Xoloz going proxy for Radiant! was an amusing ... use ... of process as well.

Process geeks don't ignore process when it doesn't get what they consider an obviously sensible result; apparently, they abuse it in amusing fashions. This is about to be ratified as an improvement - David Gerard 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Process geeks". Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As a former arbitrator, you know better. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, Mr. Gerard, but I believe you have suggested that I have "abused" process. Please explain this suggestion. It is for the ArbCom to judge what does and what does not constitute an abuse of process. I submitted evidence openly on behalf of another because I wished to reflect reality -- it was given to me by another. Had I wished to be a stickler for process, I might have engaged in the fiction that it was my own. I was simply honest. You have said that this evidence was part of a case the ArbCom previously declined to consider. I don't know if that's so, but the ArbCom is free to consider what it wishes, when it wishes, and a rejection yesterday is not a rejection for all time, unless I've missed some rule around here.

I believe you have also suggested that I am "geek" of some sort. We are here to write an encyclopedia, as you know; I think all of us qualify as "geeks", if I understand the gentler uses of that term, so I take no offense. :) Xoloz 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (back from vacation)

[edit] In defence of Crotalus

Here are the charges levelled agains Crotalus horridus and my attempts at defending him:

1. Migrating controversial userboxes to userspace. This was clearly well-intentioned, as many have pointed out, though it failed to gain the support of key people. Crotalus did not persist when his project was scuttled.
2. Nominating user conduct RFC for deletion. Also clearly well-intentioned. Those RFCs tend to do more harm than good. We normally don't delete project pages when we deprecate them but I assume that was an honest mistake on Crotalus' part in seeking the deprecation of this procedure. He shouldn't have revert-warred over it, of course, but he did engage in discussion with those who wanted the nomination withdrawn and in the end he withdrew it himself.
3. Changing and removing T1. Jimbo has repeatedly said that he has made no edict or decree in this matter. His endorsement of Sannse's rule was just that, an endorsement, and not policy by fiat. Changing or removing the criterion is not questioning Jimbo's authority and it is not disruptive, especially when Crotalus did it only once. The criterion is highly controversial, has been removed by several users (including myself) and has been edited by even more users. That's just a part of the wiki-process. Hopefully it eventually leads to something stable.

Putting Crotalus horridus, a relative newbie, on probation over these minor issues, each of which he has learnt from, seems to me to be unusually harsh - especially in the case of a person whose content contributions are consistently excellent. Haukur 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I absolutely agree. The remedies supported so far are excessively harsh. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll note my agreement as well; the issues with Croaltus appear to have worked themselves out. I think that if they start up again, the principles affirmed by the Arbcom are sufficient for administrators to act. The remedies presented seem unnecessary at the moment; at most an admonishment would be sufficient. (The same could be said in Tony's case, as well.) Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I question that he's a "relative newbie". He's spent inordinate effort on process related pages for a relative newbie, written several lengthy personal essays purporting to be policy proposals (one of which Jimbo had to slap down personally) when things don't go his way, and appears to have that magic combination of (1) excessive fondness for process (2) wanting to be the one to bend the process his way when things don't go his way. He may have an old name he wants to dissociate himself from, but all this is not the behaviour of a "relative newbie." The remedies need "under whatever account name or anonymously" added to make this quite clear - David Gerard 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Recalling the grotesquery that was mistakes made in your your analysis of User:TheChief's sockpuppet status, do you have any evidence to back this up? Otherwise it's just an unbecoming smear tactic lacks falsifiability and serves only to disparage a contributor who by definition will be unable to reply. - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, I would recommend that you avoid inflammatory comments like this; WP:CIVIL and all that...

James F. (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit rich, as I'd consider David's comment to be uncivil, but I've redacted. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Polemical" and proposed prinicple #7

Since when did "polemical" become "divisive" -- "contentious", perhaps. Without that, principle #7 is an implicit edit of WP:CSD, rather than an interpretation.

And, for that matter, when did "I support blah blah" become either? This principle seems irrelevant to the case in question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on proposed decision

Proposed principle #2:

If the suggested policy (I believe it was attributed to Jimbo in WP T:UPP) that Category- and Template- space should be free of WP:POV were adopted, then this principle would extend that policy to prevent transcludable POV templates in User-space. I urge the arbitrators to rephrase. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed principle #7:

Doesn't apply (in fact) to (most of) the religous userboxes. Probably not applicable to the case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed finding of fact #5:

I agree it's meaningless -- but the fact is that Tony has acted disruptively, even if in good faith. I would find it difficult to accept that the arbitrators were acting in good faith if they did not consider a proposed finding of fact that Tony had acted disruptively. (Note -- this is written without re-checking the public discussion by arbitrators.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

General status of the proposed decisions at the present time:

The current status of the remedy list suggests that it's better for an admin/sysop to make a decision and revert admin consensus than for a user to attempt to bypass that admin's decision. This does not seem reasonable. (I realize that both Tony and CH have done things which are not technically in the scope of this RFAr, but should probably be taken into account.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Crotalus on proposed remedies

This notice was originally placed on the proposed decision page itself.

I think Crotalus' concerns here are relevant - he is a major pain in Wikipedia: space and with userboxes, but he makes lots of good quality article edits, and it would be a shame to lose them. I strongly recommend the AC instead ban him from edit spaces other than articles, article talk and user talk, and that he not be permitted to create or apply templates except directly for article purposes. This way he gets to contribute to the encyclopedia unhindered, but is restricted from doing only the things that are problematic - David Gerard 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My personal view

Each user makes a choice on whether to use userboxes or not. Their user namespace is a private matter and should be left alone. The NPOV rule only applies to article namespace. Regards, Asterion 15:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this page does not bar anyone apart from Crotalus horridus from using userboxes. He is not banned therefrom because of NPOV problems but because of persistent disruption in that area. Oh, and the user namespace is only private in so far as to further the aims of the project. This means we can normally allow a wide latitude in what we include. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, what is the point of banning someone (I mean regarding usage of userboxes) for a whole year? I have been reviewing his contributions and, even if I do not agree with many of them, I still think he is beneficial for WP and should not be censored. Regards, Asterion 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned for a whole year. Only if it's necessary will that happen. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see. Asterion 01:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The T1 speedy deletion criterion and Crotalus horridus

This clause, though agreed unanimously, is problematic. Isn't it reasonable to ask Jimbo Wales whether in this edit, he in fact made policy as ultimate authority, or was only a participant? It is far from clear in the edit, and easy enough to remedy by asking rather than infering. If this has been done, it should be documented. If every statement Jimbo makes on Wikipedia were to be taken as infallible, it would make his participation highly problematic (as, recently, it has been). I don't believe this has ever been his intention. StrangerInParadise 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

It is unclear to me whether this is a pure finding of fact (which seems odd), or whether the arbiters have made a determination as to the correctness (or not) of the actions. StrangerInParadise 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)