User:KonstantinaG07/ArbCom PD draft

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editor conduct
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator conduct
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator accountability and trust
4)Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools. Any editor may question or criticize administrator actions in good faith. Administrators are expected to explain their Wikipedia-related conduct and their administrator actions and to justify them when requested. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers on the conduct of and the interaction of  with him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin:uncivil
2.1) During his interaction with The Rambling Man, Arthur Rubin was uncivil, made threats, personal attacks and unsupported allegations, and failed to assume good faith. This includes the preliminary phase of the case
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin and Legacypac
2.2) Arthur Rubin had voted at ANI discussion as a neutral party and was not WP:INVOLVED when revoking Legacypac's NPP permissions. However this action was ill-advised and unsupported. Combined with failure to respond to relevant inquiries, it demonstrates a problematic behavior.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin fails WP:ADMINACCT
2.3)By failing to provide diffs supporting his allegations against The Rambling Man, as well as due to the behavior at sections above, Arthur Rubin has lost the community's trust and therefore fails WP:ADMINACCT. This issue has also been considered by the community as an important component.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin:No participation
2.4) Arthur Rubin has shown no interest for the case once it was accepted. This demonstrates a complete lack of will to explain his actions or to contribute to the resolution of the problem.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The Rambling Man and Arthur Rubin
4.1)During their interaction, direct or indirect, The Rambling Man has occasionally been uncivil.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The Rambling Man:previous case
4) From 3 September to 13 October, an arbitation case was held to examine The Rambling Man's behavior. The decision included the following prohibition: " is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. " which was later amended as " is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." For full text please refer to the original case
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The Rambling Man:unproductive participation
4.3) During this case, The Rambling Man has failed to contribute productively to the procedure. His participation began late at the workshop phase and was characterized by a competitive nature, and focused more on attacking the committee than actually resolving the dispute. This behavior led to enforcement of the amended prohibition above.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin prohibited
1) is prohibited from posting speculations about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. If he is tempted to violate this prohibition, he must  disengage and either drop the issue or seek dispute resolution appropriately. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block. Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin:desysop
2) For his persistent breach of core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA and for his pattern of behavior which is incompatible with adminship and lead to irreversible loss of trust by the community, Arthur Rubin is desysopped. He may regain his rights only after a successful request for adminship.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

The Rambling Man admonished
3) is strongly admonished for his behavior during the case (especially towards the committee) which violated their already existing prohibition.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The Rambling Man advised
4) The Rambling Man is advised to be extremely cautious when participating in discussions under any sort of pressure or have a strong negative opinion on the procedure or the participants and to stay focused on the actual topic and not the participants-procedure should be discussed in the appropriate venue. If needed he should seek advice by other editors on how to achieve that. The Rambling Man is reminded that failing to follow this remedy might lead to further blocks or community imposed sanctions.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors advised
5) Editors are advised to seek the appropriate dispute resolution in a timely manner when involved and to try to help resolving them at an early stage when uninvolved. By doing so the escalation of the dispute can be prevented and unnecessary drama can be avoided.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: