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)[reply]

The page was back out to 160K. It's now down to 40K

• I've moved everything that's already on the proposed decisions page in some form, and grouped those item under a single header at the beginning of each section.
• I've removed the withdrawn items outright.
• Those Items that had muplitple competing versions I'v grouped together. For these I've also removed all existing discussion. Please review thoughoughly those points before commenting further here. Repeating ourselves is pointless. Repeating ourselves is pointless.
• The most contentious item, "Tony was right" I've replaced with the version that's now on the PD page. This section actually could use some more talking.

Because this is a massive refactor, I've done it as a move. Previous version is now at Workshop (Alpha). We're all pretty much talked out now, I think, and the page had served it's purpose. In this penultimate stage of the arbitration:

• If we could start to focus on evidence in support of the proposed findings of fact, that would be good.
• If there are other things on the page that could be let go, that would be even better.
• Shaping the existing multiple proposals down to something managable would be the best. We're all supposed to editors here for goodness sake, can we start acting like it?

brenneman^{T}{L} 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Already official[edit]

• Recreated content
• Jimbo as policy maker

  Jimbo as the ultimate authority

• Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process
• Assume good faith
• Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted
• Disruption

Userpages[edit]

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.)

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.

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.

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

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

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Brutal refactor - go look at the old discussions, if you want. - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second accounts[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia is not this, but it is that[edit]

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.

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

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."

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators may make mistakes[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Consensus and project goals[edit]

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).

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Process and outcome[edit]

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.

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.

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.

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Already official[edit]

• Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes
• Tony Sidaway has engaged in repeated reversal of other admins' actions
• Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia
• Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times
  • Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete-withdrawn
  • Nandesuka engaged in pointless deletion warring
• The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates
• Crotalus horridus vehemently opposes the T1 speedy deletion criterion
• The operation of User:Userboxes was an abuse of Wikipedia

Tony Sidaway has deleted stuff[edit]

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

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 [4], Tally (accounting) [5] [6], Fiona Sit [7], Harry Shaw-Reynolds [8], Harry James Angus [9], Ollie McGill [10], Jules Pascoe [11], Aaron Karo [12], Charles Pellegrino [13], Marissa Siketa [14], Michael Viscardi [15], Jake Putnam [16], Sambit Bal [17], B C Joshi [18], Brian Brolly [19], Michael J. Skindell [20], Philotic Web [21], Stephen Mallinder [22], Brian Walters [23],, Albert M. Wolters [24], If Only Everything [25], Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey) [26], Amy Keating Rogers [27], DTE Energy Co. [28], Homa Sayar [29], Lakewood High School [30], Pejman Akbarzadeh [31]

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.

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.

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:

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway and discussion[edit]

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[32]. 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)

5.1) On February 1, in response to concerns expressed, Tony Sidaway announced that he would "lay off DRV for a bit" [33], 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.

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." [34].

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", [35]

13) Tony Sidaway has engaged fully in the userbox debate, providing figures and analysis from the Wikipedia database. [36],[37],[38],[39],[40].[41],[42], 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 [43]. His contributions on this issue have been on both mailing lists [44],[45] , and the wiki, in appropriate policy and talk pages [46][47],[48],[49] his questions to all other arbitration committee canddidates [50], and elsewhere.

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." [51] Tony responded in a statement beginning "Reply to DESiegal:" that he considered this "a good way to cook".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Metrics on userboxes[edit]

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)

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)

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.)

The T1 speedy deletion criterion[edit]

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) [52].

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." [53]. The new criterion was discussed and found broad acceptance as an edict from Jimbo acting in the interests of the encyclopedia [54],, [55] ,[56],[57] [58] [59], about a dozen administrators have performed deletions on this criterion.

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:

Comment by others:

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

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))[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable[edit]

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"[60], 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 [61] and to make a plea for "a thoughtful process of change" [62].

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." [63].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Jimbo gave his personal opinion, which overeager users/adminstrators are using as a "oficial" order. Jimbo is not a dictator whose "wish is our command". He did not sent his loyal legions to delete all userboxes "on sight". Tony seems (in my own POV) to become a overeager vigilante/administrator. Flamarande 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy on divisive user pages[edit]

21) A policy regarding divisive user pages has been proposed as a guideline, [[64]]. It would discourage "Facile labels, polarizing "bumper stickers", polemical user boxes, factionalism, and division" But encourage "Creative informative explanatory self-expression"

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.

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 [65], [66],[67].[68]. 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:

Comment by others:

21.1) "Wide approval" is questionable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Wikipedia[edit]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

This is slightly beside the point. As I perceive it, the issue is that Tony fails to engage in discussion about his administrative actions with those that disagree with him. When someone reverts Tony, Tony reverts back and does not discuss matters. Whether or not that is done in good faith, the disruptiveness is the same. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Tony_engages_in_wheel_warring_and_refuses_to_discuss_his_actions has some examples. And since it all happened before, tensions run even higher. Here is a particularly jaded view. [69]. Pilatus 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been converted from Tony was right, but his methods have sometimes upset people
5) While there is no reason to doubt Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, other editors have expressed reasonable concerns about his methods.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems to be two conflated: That Tony acted in good faith we cannot know, and to say "there is no reason to doubt" he has seems to ignore both the considered opinions of editors otherwise in good standing and the evidence presented. That he's upset others could go into a more general "disruption" finding. Propose this be withdrawn, even though it's already on the arbitrator's page. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway remedies[edit]

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.

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.

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.

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.

8) For disrupting Wikipedia, Tony Sidaway is banned for one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nandesuka cautioned[edit]

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:

Comment by others:

Userboxes limited[edit]

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.

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:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) Write proposed enforcement here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: