Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Motion for dismissal
The case is moot and is dismissed.

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC) The "controversial circumstances" finding isn't necessary. I believe are better off trusting the bureaucrats' discretion rather than flogging a dead horse.  The rest is boilerplate.


 * Oppose:
 * Physchim62 returned his admins tools in response to the Fof and the remedies in this case. For this case to go away now does not make sense to me. FloNight (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per FloNight. Kirill 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be our role to declare when a voluntary desysopping has been in the controversial circumstances that mandate an RFA. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Administrators
1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping.  Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute, or protecting pages to enforce a preferred version after reverting it.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good enough for boilerplate Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * "Directly involved" is a bit too broad, since intervening in a dispute makes one so (particularly if this is not limited to content disputes). Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.1. FloNight (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Administrators
1.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They 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, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute
1.2) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.


 * Support:
 * To go with 1.1. Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) We are serious about this.
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Questioning of administrative actions
3) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the administrative action is bold or controversial, then is reasonable to expect that the responses to it from others in the Community will be strong. FloNight (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Administrators: return of access levels
4) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Page protection by Physchim62
1) On Template:PD-Australia, Physchim62 twice protected the page after reverting to his preferred version. The first instance occurred on July 23 and the second on July 26. The second instance came after he was notified that protection of a page by a party engaging in a dispute is forbidden by policy.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the edits, it appears that Physchim62 reverted to his preferred version and then protected the template. The point of protection is to stop an edit war not to freeze content in the correct version. FloNight (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Hesperian blocked by Physchim62
2) On December 2, Physchim62 blocked Hesperian after a TfD on Template:R-phrase during the course of inquiries made by Hesperian regarding the early closure of the TfD. This contravenes blocking policy which prohibits blocks against parties in dispute with the blocking admin.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a range of options for an administrator dealing with an user that is strongly questioning their administrative actions. Blocking the user is not one of them. FloNight (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Physchim62's access levels
3) voluntarily gave up his sysop access.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Physchim62 desysopped
1) Physchim62's administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.


 * Support:
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to standard "usual means" wording. Kirill 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Overtaken by events again. Kirill 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. FloNight (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Physchim62's sysop access
2) Physchim62 gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer questions on the talk page, this remedy means that Physchim62 can not get his administrative tools back by asking a 'crat for them. FloNight (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.'' Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Passing are:
 * Proposed principles 1.1, 1.2, 2, 3, and 4;
 * Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, and 3; and
 * Proposed remedy 2.

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Move to close Paul August &#9742; 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC) (P4 not strictly necessary in light of "Philwelch", per Newyorkbrad's comment on talk page)
 * Close. Agree, I feel that the Committee is confirming the usual practices of the Community in regard to 'crats requiring admins to go through a RFA if the admin returns the bit under controversial circumstances. I think we are on the same page with the 'crats and are re-enforcing their wisdom in requiring a RFA instead of over riding them by mandating it. FloNight (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. Kirill 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)