Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
 * Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders
1) {text of proposed orders}


 * Aye:


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Proposed principles
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) The general sense is fine, but admins do not have "duties" as such (that is, they're not actually obliged to use their admin superpowers if they don't feel like it). Can we reword a bit? Maybe go with "Administrators are not expected to be perfect in using their blocking and other powers. However, consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status." Small point, I know.

2) Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Guanaco blocked Cantus, believing that Cantus had violated his revert parole, whereas in fact Cantus had limited his reverts to a barely acceptable level. On being informed of his error, Guanaco reversed it.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

2) Cantus appears to have ignored the recommended method of resolving blocks in error, instead choosing to cross-post to the village pump and various admin talk pages. Guanaco reverted these edits.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

3) Guanaco's actions as an administrator have been consistently controversial - notably his use of the protection, unprotection, blocking, and unblocking facilities.


 * Aye:
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I think this is reasonable -- I don't think his use of them has always been wrong, not by a long shot, but it has most definitely been unusually controversial.)
 * Martin 01:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (see, for example, the earlier Lir case)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

4) Cantus has continued to engage in sterile and pointless edit wars, such as on Clitoris and Siberia.


 * Aye:
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) ("sterile and pointless" may be a little harsh, but not by much)
 * Martin 01:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) He hasn't edited Siberia since September. Clitoris is a different thing, but is just one article. Are there others? If so, can we list them? My impression is that Cantus doesn't edit war as much as was once the case, and there's nothing on the evidence page to convince me otherwise (which isn't to say my impression is necessarily correct).

Proposed remedies
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.


 * Aye:
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 01:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (need a quicker way to block future similar disputes)
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) The ban on editing Siberia at least appears to be entirely unnecessary, and a year is a long time. This just seems a bit random to me.


 * Abstain:

2) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. The exact mechanism by which to make this decision is a matter for the community to choose. If the community cannot agree on a mechanism, the arbitration committee suggests a re-application at Requests for adminship.


 * Aye:
 * the Epopt 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Too vague for a remedy, an extension of our power were we to just go ahead and require that he be listed on RfSysophood James F. (talk) 12:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favor of remedy #3. &rarr;Raul654 04:28, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto Raul mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto ditto ----the Epopt 02:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) (just proposing - unsure)
 * I agree with the idea, Martin, but I'm not sure about the vagueness of it. It might be better to remand to RFA directly, unless that's an overextension of our power....I don't see anything against it, but it certainly would be an innovation on our part.  I don't see how the community will agree on a mechanism, and it would likely drag on far too long.  Any objections to simply placing on RFA? Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) A bit vague, though the idea is OK.

3) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. Guanaco is required to reapply for adminship at Requests for adminship. Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 15:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (better, Jwros?)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - this one sounds appropriate
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt 02:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Force the community to decide - I like it :)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Only issue -- will Guanaco be held to different standards than a new applicant? But I guess we're leaving that in the hands of the bureaucrats.)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

4) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:27, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 01:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (in view of Clitoris, etc)
 * --the Epopt 02:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * Camembert 00:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Hm, I'd rather we gave a couple more example articles to show that his reverting is as much of a problem as we're making out. Clitoris is OK for one - if we can list a couple more, then I'll probably change to vote "aye".

Enforcement
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Aye:


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

General
I'm proposing some ideas without actually supporting them here - I'm after a little feedback, I guess. This is what my gut says, but I need to check the background further first.

FoF #3 and remedy #2 is there as reaction to Ambi's comments, which I consider part of the case. If this had been the only controversial thing Guanaco did, this would likely not have made arbitration, so it seems relevant. Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's within our remit to de-sysop folks, so I feel it's also within our remit to require them to reapply for sysophood. Martin 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Somehow this one slipped under my radar. Although I have been requested to vote on it, I am not familiar with the facts and would add nothing of value. I believe enough have voted to provide valid support for a decision. Fred Bauder 21:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four Aye votes needed to close case


 * James F. (talk) 21:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)