Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Administrators
1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgement may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship. If revoked, the user may have a temporary or permanent limitation placed on reapplying.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard and relevant. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the proposer has made some modifications to the previously used wording. They are generally reasonable, but I would want to do some copyediting before this found its way into a decision. The wordings found in MZMcBride as before that SemBubenny are the ones we have most recently used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken from MZMcBride's case.  Majorly  talk  15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yep. Acalamari 21:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; 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, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agreed. Though it should be noted that this applies to all sides in a dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken from SemBubenny's case.  Majorly  talk  15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree with Carcharoth. Acalamari 21:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish
3) According to Right to vanish, users in good standing may request to leave Wikipedia permanently, and "vanish", which removes most traces of an account from Wikipedia. This is not a right to a "fresh start" under a new name.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree that the invoking of right to vanish did cause confusion. Standards should be clearer that this is not something to be done frivolously, and it should be clearly revoked if the user returns. What is needed here, I think, is people being encouraged to use "retired" templates more, and it should be made crystal-clear that "right to vanish" should not be used if there is any chance that you might want to edit Wikipedia again in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think RTV is often misunderstood, especially by new editors (I know Aitias is not a new editor). When people mistakenly cite RTV, they shouldn't be castigated for it. Or to put it another way, RTV was not written to be used to exclude people who want to return, but to allow people to leave with dignity and not have pages and lengthy disputes about them left in their wake. My impression is that it was primarily intended to apply to people who edited under their real name without realising the consequences of this, or who used a pseudonym they use elsewhere and wanted to continue using elsewhere. The difficult cases come when there is the possibility that someone has used RTV frivolously and: (a) not made clear immediately that they've changed their mind or made a mistake (I think Aitias did make this clear here, not immediately, but fairly soon); and (b) use it more than once. I would say that a second citing of RTV and then returning is more serious than doing do once, but even then there is not any chance that a good-faith contributor would be told "sorry, you cited RTV, you can't come back". That also misunderstands RTV. What does happen is that someone may get a reputation for citing "right to vanish", in the same way that people get a reputation for retiring in a huff and then coming back later. But that is part of that person's reputation and is punishment enough. No need to add admonishments on top of that. Possibly second or third RTV requests to delete user pages might be declined with a "you have done this before and returned - as this abused the good faith of the community, the right to vanish is delayed, and the pages will be deleted in one month" (and obviously not deleted if the editor returns). Of course, in this case, it was self-deletion of pages by an admin - and I see no-one has presented any evidence yet about how common that sort of thing is (see evidence talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think two related issues are being confused here. One is how a user's stated intent to retire should bear on his or her status as a party to an arbitration case. The only sound answer to that, really, is that these things have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, considering (among other things) the effect that proceeding with the case or not might have on the other parties and their behavior. A second but distinct question is how the "right to vanish" policy is to be used. That is a legitimate topic for discussion, although I wish many more people would bear in mind that announcements of intent to leave can be in perfect good faith even though a user later changes his or her mind. We don't want to make it impossible or even any more difficult than it has to be for good users, who for whatever reason believe they need to decide to step away from the project, from returning when their circumstances change. ("Vanishing is irreversible" would be a terrible rule.) In any event, in this instance, I don't think it made any difference to the case that Aitias said he was "vanishing" rather than "retiring", and hence I see focus on RtV here as a bit of a digression. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is fairly important, since Aitias delayed the case somewhat by pretending to invoke this "right".  Majorly  talk  15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I disagree. It is an assumption of bad faith and judgment to say Aitias did only pretend it, there is no proof that he did it to delay the case. And RTV does not mean you cannot return later and unvanish which is what he did. So I think the proposal should be appended to express this as well. Regards  So Why  15:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the page: "If you wish to leave permanently, and to remove any association with your past edits, you may exercise your right to vanish." (emphasis not mine). Besides, my comment isn't really relevant here, the text of the principle is though.  Majorly  talk  15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re. Carcharoth: I think encouraging using retired templates is not necessarily the best course of action - they are used too frivolously as it is at the moment. However, I agree discouraging right to vanish, and making it abundantly clear it's irreversible is a good idea.  Majorly  talk  15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is correct: when you invoke Right to vanish, you are supposed to "vanish" for good, as the page says, and not to vanish and unvanish whenever you like. I also note the following from the RTV page: "Vanishing is not a right, it is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave." Acalamari 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is an opportunity for the committee to be explicitly clear here about people invoking RTV with no intention of actually following through with it. I agree with Majorly: RTV should entail your account being permanently locked down and you disappearing for good. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  19:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. It would equate invoking RTV with being community banned. Without evidence that Aitias vanished with the sole intent to delay or halt these proceedings and always intended to return, this principle does not seem relevant to the case. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you strongly disagree with what the guideline says, take it up at the relevant talk page. Vanish means vanish.  Majorly  talk  13:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But where exactly in WP:RTV does it say that you cannot change your mind and return later? That would effectively mean what Kevin says, that a vanished user who decided to leave on his own will be treated the same as someone who was banned by the community. So unless you want ArbCom to rule that vanished users are not allowed to return to editing, which is not supported by the guideline, I see no relevance to this case. Regards  So  Why  13:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the guideline? "If you wish to leave permanently, and to remove any association with your past edits, you may exercise your right to vanish." (emphasis not mine) "Users in good standing may request to leave Wikipedia permanently, and "vanish", which removes most traces of an account from Wikipedia." "...these are generally not deleted unless a user is exercising a permanent right to vanish" "Vanishing is the act of disassociating the identity of a user account from the identity of its owner" "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." (emphasis not mine). I hope it is now clear to you that, according to the guideline, RTV is permanent. This is why RTV should not be used frivilously, and only after much thought and deliberation. It is effectively a self-ban of an association with a particular account, yes. Again, it's not something to be used willy-nilly.  Majorly  talk  13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At no point RTV says that you cannot return anymore. I would even say that there is overwhelming consensus that people can return after having exercised RTV to a point that discussion when they do does only revolve around the "how" and never around the "if" (see Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish or this for example). WP:RTV only details on the fact that one can exercise such a right in certain circumstances but it clearly does not make any ruling about reversing this. It forbids returning under a new name for example, but it does not say anything about returning under the old name. Hundreds of users have done so before (even some who are now admins) and as far as I know they were never told that they could not do that.
 * Aitias did return under his old name, told this to ArbCom and all things that were deleted when he exercised his right to vanish were restored to their previous state. So I do not see how this has any relevance to this case. Especially because the principle as you proposed it does not address this at all. If you think the principle should be that returning is not allowed, it should clearly say so. Regards  So Why  14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it about the word "permanent" that you do not understand?  Majorly  talk  14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pointing out that "permanently" in this case refers to the vanishing user's wish to leave, not to the vanishing part itself. It says "If you wish to leave permanently (...)", thus only referring to the reason someone would wish to vanish, not that there is no way back. As I pointed out above, both the wording and consensus are not saying this. I understand that you are reading the word "permanently" differently but I think both the wording and consensus on this issue are not as clear as you might assume. Regards  So Why  16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias is often rude or hostile
1) Aitias is often uncivil, sarcastic and rude in discussions with other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This does appear to be the case. I am waiting, though, to see if evidence will be presented to provide context. Were there reasons for Aitias to make such comments? Was he baited or was it the same editors he responded to over and over again (that would point to a personal dispute, rather than general incivility issues). Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to Acalamari - it is not the disagreeing with Aitias at various places that I had in mind here. It was the responses to his opposes at the RFAs. I've asked on the evidence talk page whether people turning up to criticise Aitias for his opposes to those RFAs is acceptable conduct by current community standards at RfAs - is it? See in particular this comment. Tznkai says in the edit summary "comment to Acalamari, Majorly, Black Kite". Read the comments made by Acalamari (scroll down to see edit in question), Majorly, and Black Kite - did they provoke Aitias's later reply (which has been cited in evidence by Acalamari as "Dismissive and sarcastic response on a recent RfA")? Aitias should also have heeded Tznkai's advice, but then others also replied after Tznkai tried to calm things down. I've also asked for evidence on how common it is for editors to break wiki-breaks to vote on RFAs (and whether that is considered OK or not by the community - I saw several other people break long wikibreaks to vote in the same RFAs), but nothing has been presented about that yet. The more general point I'm trying to make here is that people being "uncivil, sarcastic and rude" is rarely done in a vacuum - the context is needed, rather than diffs without context. Now, I only saw what happened on the RFAs, but what I saw there leads me to question what happened in other incidents. Same people? Same pattern of arguments? Or is Aitias uncivil, sarcastic and rude with other editors as well? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, mostly per Mr.Z-man's evidence.  Majorly  talk  15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re. Carch: Have a read of Aitias's original oppose. I'll admit, our response were not exactly stellar, but I think his original oppose was fairly spiteful and unnecessarily brusque. He's not exactly helping himself. The chain of events starts with him, not the people who (naturally) reply to him. It seems to me at least he's rude and uncivil without any provoking.  Majorly  talk  16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this to be accurate in my dealing with him. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'd agree with this: disagreeing with Aitias was not "baiting" nor "trolling" him. Acalamari 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth, even if that is the case in every situation (and it isn't, particularly some of the rollback-related ones), its long been established that while it may be a mitigating factor, other users being uncivil to you is not a license to be uncivil back. I purposely didn't give much context in my section to allow people to draw their own conclusions (and to keep the size down). Many of the diffs are all from the same discussions (I tried to organize them this way, but its hard to see it in the rendered text), and many of the discussions aren't particularly long, for example. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias has ownership issues on certain pages
2) Aitias has ownership issues on certain pages, in particular WP:RFR and its associated templates, but also on templates such as unblock and some system messages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I have requested, on the evidence talk page, some evidence to be presented delineating the difference between being a regular at a page and WP:OWNing a page. From what I can see, several of those in dispute with Aitias are regulars at the rollback permissions page. Z-man has kindly provided figures for the most active granters of rollback. I would also like to see evidence pertaining to frequency of participation in discussions about rollback permissions. It that possible? I would also like to see some discussion of whether WP:OWNership is possible in other areas, such as policy talk pages and the WP:RFA process, for instance. If it is not possible to answer such questions, it is difficult, in my opinion, to build a convincing case for WP:OWN here. A principle relating to WP:OWN would also be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, I can see the evidence presented regarding Aitias and the allegations of OWNership. What I'm asking is whether others may also exhibit OWNership of processes on Wikipedia, and whether that applies to the request for rollback page. A good starting point would be some evidence on how often rollbacks are removed following it being granted by another admin. And who posts most often in discussions about rollback (i.e. who wheel-wars over rollback permissions and who argues to have their decisions or viewpoint endorsed). Another way to put it: what percentage of the rollback permissions granted are controversial ("discussed"), and is it the same people arguing about it each time? And who are those people? Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, based on evidence from Acalamari, Juliancolton and PeterSymonds.  Majorly  talk  15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re. Carch: I've put a summary of some of the incidents already mentioned that, to me, look like OWN issues, here.  Majorly  talk  15:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely the case. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Aitias has misused rollback
3) Aitias has misused rollback, and refused to accept he has, despite being advised by three other editors that this was the case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Presuming Aitias has misused rollback, this would, presumably, point to a remedy involving removal of rollback. Or is the point here to say that admins should know how to use rollback, particularly as they have the ability to grant this right to others? If so, that should be a proposed principle. It should also be clear whether any associated remedy applies only in this case, or to all admins who may be found to have misused rollback. Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I believe Majorly is referring to item 5 rather than 4 under "improper conduct"; perhaps there has been a subsequent renumbering.) When I looked at the case at the case acceptance phase, it involved Aitias' admin-rollback of a single edit on his talkpage, which he justified by relying on the "one's own userspace" exception to the general "rollback is only for vandalism" rule. This led to a lengthy discussion of whether a user's talkpage is part of "userspace" as opposed to "user talkspace". My previous comment on this was that "the discussion that has taken place regarding whether one may use rollback liberally on one's own user talkpage, as opposed to elsewhere in one's userspace, strikes me as a classic example of letting analysis of the literal wording of a policy overpower the reasons behind the policy", and I adhere to that view. In any case, I believe Aitias promised sometime ago that he would no longer use rollback for good-faith edits on his talkpage. Unless there is more to this issue or something has changed, it strikes me as too thin a reed to support an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, see my evidence, fourth point under improper conduct.  Majorly  talk  15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re. Carch: rollback is part and parcel of being an admin, so I think this is covered in the first principle. I think a remedy suggesting admins who misuse rollback are admonished in some way would be a good thing, more so than just Aitias (who should certainly be admonished too).  Majorly  talk  15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I believe this to be the case, I think it's less important in the context of the overall decision. Whether user space and user talk space are the same or not is irrelevant to Aitias' conduct and his actions -- it was the setting for the dispute, rather than the dispute itself. I think the better proposed finding is that "Aitias refuses advice from other editors that his behavior may be incorrect". &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Per Newyorkbrad, and in part, per Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias has edit warred on fully protected pages
4) Aitias has edit warred on fully protected pages, and has either not responded to other editors' attempts to resolve the issues, or responded with rudeness and/or sarcastic remarks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Edit warring on protected pages is indeed of concern. Will be examining the evidence closely on this. An associated principle on page protection and admin actions would be relevant here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, see the evidence from Juliancolton, and myself (fifth point under improper conduct).  Majorly  talk  15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I first became aware of his edit-warring on fully-protected pages during the RfC. I found them disturbing then, and still find them disturbing now. Acalamari 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias has high standards for granting rollback
5) Aitias has high standards for granting rollback.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Does this proposed finding of fact lend itself to a remedy? If not, it is not that useful. What is needed is an associated principle about rollback, pointing to whether high or low or normal standards are good here or not. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, a fairly simple fact, but it's important enough I think.  Majorly  talk  15:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His high standards tend to mean that people do not get granted rollback that others may grant rollback to. His high standards have caused him, on at least one occasion, to start a thread (noted in the evidence) questioning why someone granted another user rollback. His high standards, as Acalamari notes, seem a bit unfair considering his own (purposeful) misuse of rollback.  Majorly  talk  16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I wasn't sure about this one, but I think it's relevant based on Aitias' own misuse of rollback. It's unfair to to penalize others for their own revert mistakes when making your own, and when they're pointed out to you, denying or justifying them. Acalamari 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The standards Aitias uses are inconsistent with the "easy come, easy go" ideal that the community supported for non-admin rollback (short of linking the entire community rollback poll, I'm not sure how to provide evidence of this, though some of this is seen in mine and Majorly's (point 3) evidence) and is likely the catalyst for most of the disputes with other users regarding rollback granting, as seen in Majorly's evidence. Mr.Z-man 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Admins admonished
1) Admins who misuse rollback are admonished for violating the rollback feature guideline.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Too generalised. Needs to be applied to specific named admins (and anyone other than the parties to this case would be out of scope). There were previous arbitration rulings related to rollback and maybe also the "undo" feature - can you find those? Some may have been before the rollback rights feature arrived. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above regarding the related proposed finding of fact. Is this proposal really warranted based upon (as best I recall) just one or a very small number of edits, particularly where Aitias has promised to avoid using rollback this way in the future? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Majorly  talk  15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's too generalised, simply make it about Aitias. I personally did not want to be the one thinking up the "punishments" here, since I'm the one bringing the case forward. But I think admins who misuse rollback ought to have some sort of admonishment. They're not above the rules of it just because it's not easily taken away like an ordinary rollbacker.  Majorly  talk  16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on what SoWhy said here (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), I think this is a very good remedy regarding use of the rollback tool, and I don't think that Aitias, despite this case being about him, should be singled out over admin rollback misuse. I can think of a few admins who misuse (and even outrightly abuse) the rollback feature: I think an admonishment to those admins would be a good thing, especially when we have rollbackers who have rollback taken away for trivial reasons. Acalamari 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But how can ArbCom admonish users who are not parties of the current case?  So Why  11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom admonish people indirectly as the result of cases all the time...  Majorly  talk  15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom can make a ruling upon which users who are violating certain principles may be sanctioned if they do so in the future. But I have never seen ArbCom admonish people who were not parties in a case. It's something else to say "admins (...) are admonished" compared to "admins (...) should be warned and may be sanctioned". Regards  So Why  18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if this was so, two wrongs don't make a right - and this admonishment seems quite direct. Also, it is absent of any evidence/principles/findings to justify such a remedy; more community input would be needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) Admins who continue to misuse rollback may be subject to a block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Hasn't the blocking of admins traditionally been avoided except in certain limited circumstances not related to admin tools (e.g. 3RR)? I thought blocking of admins over their block actions, for example, was practically verboten, as likely to lead to wheel warring. Isn't this a similar thing? There were previous arbitration rulings related to rollback - can anyone find those? Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Same comment as above. This is far removed from the crux of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Majorly  talk  15:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That ruling, while maybe desirable, would target a HUGE number of admins. Heck, I was reverted by an admin for declining their speedy request once. With that motion, such reverts would be a blockable offense.  So Why  11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So they should be. As I noted above, admins should not be above the rules for use of rollback. Either everyone is kept to the same standard, or admins should follow the same rules as ordinary rollbackers do. If it hits a huge number of admins, either we have a lot of poor admins, or the rollback guideline isn't a very good one.  Majorly  talk  16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless they're doing it on a regular/frequent basis, I don't see how this would be anything but a purely punitive measure. I mean, if someone misuses rollback on average once a month, blocking them for less than a month prevents nothing, and blocking for a month or more would be excessive. If the idea is to just scare them into not doing it again, this doesn't seem like the most productive way to do it. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man is right. If an admin misuses rollback often, they should be handled individually. But an ArbCom case about a single admin should not make any rulings like that. The problem with the misuse of rollback is not that those admins are poor but that they are probably not up-to-date. We have hundreds of admins who gained adminship in 2003, 2004, 2005 who are doing administrative actions outside current policy and one might assume that is because they are not feeling active enough to learn those changes. But unless you propose a new policy to handle admins acting outside any policy, there is no real way to prevent that. An ArbCom ruling is the worst way to do any of that, not at least because all those admins are not parties in this case. Regards  So Why  11:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per NYB, this was the symptom not the disease. You treat the disease, not the symptoms, or the result is worse. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: