From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point 4.1.2 Administrators 4.1.3 The role of talk pages in accuracy disputes 4.1.4 Use of rollback 4.1.5 Reverting edits by banned users 4.1.6 Original research 4.1.7 Wikiquette 4.1.8 Disruption through sockpuppet accounts and IPs 4.1.9 Template 4.1.10 Template 4.1.11 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Deltabeignet 4.2.2 Deltabeignet's request for adminship 4.2.3 Deltabeignet's inappropriate "experiment" 4.2.4 Evaluation 4.2.5 No apparent vandalism 4.2.6 Supplemental finding 4.2.7 Deltabeignet requested to be desysopped 4.2.8 Template 4.2.9 Template 4.2.10 Template 4.2.11 Template 4.2.12 Template 4.2.13 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Deltabeignet strongly admonished 4.3.2 No action taken 4.3.3 Have Deltabeignet clean up whatever damage he caused 4.3.4 Template 4.3.5 Template 4.3.6 Template 4.3.7 Template 4.3.8 Template 4.3.9 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Adminship status may be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee 4.4.2 Restoring lost adminship through WP:RFA 4.4.3 Enforcement by block 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 The majority of Deltabeignet's IP edits were made in good faith 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[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] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

1) Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point discourages experiments in disruptive behavior designed to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Konstable and other cases. Newyorkbrad 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

2) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgement may result in appropriate action up to desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adopted from Konstable. Newyorkbrad 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The role of talk pages in accuracy disputes

3) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of rollback

4) One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Copied from WP:ADMIN. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edits by banned users

5) Per the banning policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; from WP:BAN. I thought it was relevant to Deltabeignet's (and my) reverts of Leyasu's edits on gothic metal recently. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

6) Original research is generally designated as being immediately removable by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From WP:AP/PD. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette

7) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; from WP:AP/PD. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption through sockpuppet accounts and IPs

8) Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; copied from WP:SOCK. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

True principle, but based on the evidence I don't think it's been violated in this case. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Deltabeignet

1) Deltabeignet (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) is an experienced user who has contributed to Wikipedia as an editor since February 2005 and an administrator since December 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, background. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deltabeignet's request for adminship

1b) The oppose voters in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deltabeignet 2 did not mention any concerns they had about his user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a clarification of the above finding of fact. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deltabeignet's inappropriate "experiment"

2) From on or about September 2006 until December 2006, Deltabeignet engaged in an informal "experiment" to determine whether anonymous edits from an IP account would be treated differently than edits by a registered user and administrator. Deltabeignet would edit an article from his IP account, typically by removing material that he believed was problematic in some way. If another editor restored the removed material, Deltabeignet would then revert that user's edit, sometimes using the administrator rollback tool and often without providing an edit summary, thereby replicating the IP edit. See generally Deltabeignet's admissions contained in discussion initiated by a concerned user on Deltabeignet's userpage, further userpage discussion, Deltabeignet's statement when this case was filed, statement after the case was accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation

3) Deltabeignet's ad hoc "experiment" served no useful purpose and caused concern to at least one editor who believed that an administrator was repeatedly reinstating bad edits without explanation and purposefully damaging the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From the table of edits compiled by SebatianHelm, only one shows inappropriate use of rollback

1. [1] IP edit
2. [2] SebastianHelm rollsback
3. [3] Delta rollsback to the IP edit

Since the edit was removal of an unsourced self-reference, it was clearly a content dispute and thus Sebastian's use of rollback was also inappropriate. SebastianHelm has not placed other incidences of inappropriate use of rollback on the evidence page. Thatcher131 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delta also appears to have used rollback to restore an IP edit he made on the article Regifting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) [4]. Thatcher131 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar cases, such as Kelly Martin's userbox deletions and /B list, have also brought serious concern to the community; so it is important that we establish that Deltabeignet's actions caused users concern. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher131: My rollback was a clear case for {{Crwarn}}: (1) The blanked text was an undisputed, well-known statement of fact, and (2) 69.245.41.105 (talk • contribs) had already been warned several times by other editors for unconstructive edits. (This is my honest understanding. If I'm missing anything, please let's discuss it on my talk page, and I will amend or strike out my comment here.) — Sebastian 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No apparent vandalism

4) Deltabeignet has provided explanations for specific edits that have been questioned, and while some are debatable, they generally appear to be within the realm of good-faith editing. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence#Replies_to_evidence_presented_by_Sebastian_by_User:Deltabeignet. The evidence does not suggest purposeful vandalism, nor does it reflect any misuse of other administrator tools such as blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See analysis below. Thatcher131 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general, although this could easily be interpreted as vandalism under Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supplemental finding

5) Deltabeignet has apologized for his conduct, acknowledged that it was improper, and stated that it will not be repeated. Prior to the conduct at issue in this case, Deltabeignet's status as an editor and administrator in good standing had not been questioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deltabeignet requested to be desysopped

6) On m:Requests for permissions, Deltabeignet requested to be desysopped based on abuse of the administrative rollback tool. He later retracted his request for desysopping. [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[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] Deltabeignet strongly admonished

1) Deltabeignet is strongly admonished for his misconduct as described in this decision. He is reminded to abide at all times by the principles described above and to comport himself with the standards expected of editors and administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, if the committee inclines to leniency. Obviously, the alternative is desysopping, which would not be unreasonable and would arguably be consistent with recent precedent, but that is a judgment call. Newyorkbrad 04:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: My review and the conclusions reached by Thatcher131 tend to suggest that the situation here is less serious than may have appeared at first blush. Newyorkbrad 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. I looked through the cases listed at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, and the admins on that list that were desysopped by the arbcom were desysopped for much more serious offenses. I think that desysopping should remain an option if Deltabeignet returns to this sort of experimental behavior. However, since Deltabeignet seems to have realized that he has been disruptive and has returned to using the tools in a non-controversial manner, I don't think desysopping him is necessary. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship is somewhat outdated and Arbcom seems to be desysopping more eagerly now (e.g. MONGO), something I'm not sure what to make of. Either way, I think it's overkill for this case and agree with Thatcher131's conclusions. Admonishment sounds about right. I'd make it just "admonished" since "strongly" is a little too melodramatic here. And if Deltabeignet still wants to know whether IP's get reverted more, he could just have asked me, the answer is "slightly". [6] 67.117.130.181 14:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've stricten "strongly" from my proposal. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm satisfied with dmcdevit's informal agreement with Deltabeignet that I just noticed, provided Deltabeignet reads this workshop page sometime (if he hasn't already), since the remarks here have been insightful. 67.117.130.181 14:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No action taken

2) Based on a review of all the circumstances, including Deltabeignet's statements, no remedies are imposed and the case is closed. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternative proposal to 1. At this point it appears that further action in this matter may not be necessary. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have Deltabeignet clean up whatever damage he caused

3) Since Deltabeignet repeatedly said he felt sorry for what he did, I propose giving him a chance to make up for his mistake. A straightforward solution would be for him to go through his edits and provide a table with links to diffs and correct comments, and fix falsifications and excessive deletions. Then, ArbCom (or someone appointed by ArbCom) should spot check his comments to assess if Deltabeignet did an honest effort. If not, other remedies apply, as decided by separate vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The beauty of this proposal is that it is not a punishment, and that the effort to Deltabeignet is commensurate with the damage. I am offering technical help in creating the table with the links. — Sebastian (proposed 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC) in the wrong place, reposted here 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Adminship status may be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee

1a) If, after this case concludes, Deltabeignet returns to the pattern of disruptive behavior shown on the Evidence page and in the Findings of Fact, and a user in good standing with the community brings it before the Committee at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee may desysop him at their discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not entirely familiar with the policy surrounding this, but going through another several-week- or several-month-long arbcom case would seem redundant and bureaucratic to me; I think it would be better to bring further concerns to WP:RFAR#Motions in prior cases. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring lost adminship through WP:RFA

1b) If he is desysopped by the arbitration committee, Deltabeignet must reapply for adminship through WP:RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If he is desysopped (which I don't currently find necessary), this seems logical. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement by block

2) If he commits any further disruption, Deltabeignet may be blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; from WP:POINT in a nutshell: "If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked." --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

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

[edit] The majority of Deltabeignet's IP edits were made in good faith

Unlike some past breaching experiments, Deltabeignet's IP edits do not appear to have been intentionally disruptive. I checked a random sample, and personally agreed with all of them, from a content point of view. The results of the experiment do seem to indicate that IP edits are sometimes not accorded the same respect as registered users. Two examples.

1. Viola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) IP removes purple prose [7]. Reverted [8] with a warning [9]. Deltabeignet removes the purple prose again [10] and it stays out. (no use of admin rollback in this case).

2. Peter Griffin: Husband, Father...Brother? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Removes a cultural reference (character was imitating Che Guevera) that had no sources [11]. Reverted [12] and warned [13]. As an IP editor, removes the reference again [14]. It has not been re-added since. Thatcher131 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't see this particular experiment as intentionally disrutpive at all, and only unintentionally disruptive in December when SebastianHelm twigged to it. I see very little abuse of admin rollback; SebastianHelm's evidence only cites one example and I have not seen others, although I have only followed a few of the IP edits to see the result/followup.Thatcher131 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In my spot checks, I found 7 edits which don't appear in good faith to me, as presented in the evidence. How does the presence of two good edits change this? Nobody said that all edits were bad. It appears to me that Thatcher131 is taking WP:FAITH to an extreme. — Sebastian 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Deltabeignet confessed to a worse offense than he committed. Newyorkbrad 04:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I've workshopped this comparatively straightforward case because it looks like no one else is going to be submitting any evidence. I hope the draft is helpful to the parties and to the arbitrators, especially given the large number of cases currently pending. Newyorkbrad 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)