Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Tony Sidaway's refactor)

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.

Third serious refactoring

The current incarnation of this page is based on a snapshot of the proposed decision page made at around 0400 on March 10, 2006.

Previous incarnations of this page can be found at:
 * ../Workshop (moved away by Aaron Brenneman, moved back by Paul August)
 * ../Workshop (Aaron Brenneman's refactor)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruption
1) Disruptive conduct may lead to a block imposed at an administrator's discretion, or more substantial bans or restrictions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Recreated content
2) If a page, image, or template deleted because its use was inappropriate is reproduced under the same or a different name anywhere on Wikipedia either with the intention of, or with the end result of, the new item being used in the same way as the deleted item, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process
3) Administrators, like all editors, should be respectful of consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear or is in dispute, applications of sysop rights should show deference to discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wheel warring
4) Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Resolving disputes, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 0-2-2 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

... but repetition is the key
4.1) Wheel warring (repeatedly reversing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Resolving disputes, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: James F. 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) "It is the repetition (with or without discussion, really) that is the problem. Someone who immediately reverts anyone doing a delete - but does so only once per item - is not really wheel-warring, but doing wrong by not discussing things. The two are not the same and shouldn't be conflated."
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Jimbo as policy maker
5) Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop:Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
6) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others. See Assume good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop:Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 3-2 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

... until shown otherwise
6.1) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others until it is demonstrated to be not true. See Assume good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop:James F. 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Better.
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted
7) Templates, particularly userboxes, which are polemical or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Criteria for speedy deletion. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decision making and dispute resolution
8) Decision making on Wikipedia is normally done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Consensus and Policies and guidelines. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (that is, Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 5-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Crotalus horridus' recreates userboxes
1) Crotalus horridus has repeatedly recreated inflammatory userboxes deleted by multiple administrators, including Template:User admins ignoring policy, Template:User Anti-UN, and Template:User Anti-ACLU, which had been deleted under the new T1 "inflammatory and divisive" speedy deletion criterion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The T1 speedy deletion criterion and Crotalus horridus
2) On February 6th, added a new criterion for speedy deletion: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." After it was reverted, Jimbo Wales reinserted it  and made comments indicating it is now policy.

After it had become policy, Crotalus horridus made several contested changes to the criterion, and then deleted it entirely,. The last edit in particular constitutes disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia
3) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page 8 times within a 24 hour period, in the process undoing the undeletion of five separate administrators. His stated reason was that the page was "not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The MfD discussion was closed and the page was deleted for the last time after three days, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Catholic Alliance of wikipedia evidence)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * Good outline, though it dwells too much on the futile attempt to keep the page alive. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway has wheel warred
4) Tony Sidaway has engaged in wheel warring multiple times. These include deletion of Catholic_Alliance_of_wikipedia eight times, undeletion of Systemwars.com five times, deletion of Template:User GWB five times, undeletion of Warren Benbow four times, undeletion of Monique deMoan three times, undeletion of List of Louisiana Baptist University people three times, undeletion of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) three times, undeletion of Tally (accounting) two times, undeletion of SuperOffice two times, undeletion of Seth Ravin two times, undeletion of Thomasine Church two times, undeletion of Brian Brolly two times, undeletion of OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood three times, and undeletion of Gazeebow Unit two times. These include the reversal of more than a dozen different administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others
5) While there is no substantial reason to doubt Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, other editors have expressed reasonable concerns about his methods.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * I prefer Snowspinner's formulation, but this one at least retains the quality of accuracy, if not precision. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Crotalus horridus has acted disruptively
6) In addition to the recreations and deletion of policy, many of Crotalus horridus' edits constitute disruption, including the nomination of Requests for comment/User conduct for deletion and four reverts of its speedy closing. He has also violated the three-revert rule and engaged in disruption with respect to Template:ElectionResultsCA. See Physchim62's evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 4-0 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree. I've commented endlessly on this elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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:

Crotalus horridus banned from userboxes
1) Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Tony Sidaway.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 3-0-1 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * Completely over the top. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Crotalus horridus placed on general Probation
2) Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 3-0-1 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * Utterly bonkers. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR
3) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: Dmcdevit 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently 3-2 on proposed decision


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not a bad first cut, but could be abused. No remedy is perfect, but I think we could do better than this. See below. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

...on administrative 0RR
3.2) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action without discussion. He shall follow the procedure outlined in Admin zero-revert rule.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am troubled by claims that I don't explain my actions. If were true (which I deny and have presented extremely strong evidence to refute) then the remedy should address this. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin has failed to notice my explanation of my original unprotection, which was performed well over two weeks after the original protection, my explanation of my removal of semiprotection (there was no vandalism) . Her statement that I did not fully explain my actions is categorically false and (qv) demonstrably so. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * You didn't explain your actions recently when unprotecting Will McWhinney twice, unless you count your brief edit summaries as explanations. You only explained further after I'd reprotected and asked you for an explanation, even though I'd left a note on WP:PP asking that anyone wanting to unprotect contact me before doing so. It seems to me that discussing an issue with the blocking or protecting admin implies (if at all possible) discussing it with them before you undo their actions, not afterwards, and then only when they have contacted you. And your eventual explanation that "this is a routine unprotection" (when it was far from routine) implied that you felt you didn't have to give an explanation. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway cannot reverse another administrator's administrative actions
3.1) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any other administrator's administrative actions (e.g. protection, deletion, blocking) aside from simple editing actions (e.g. rollbacks).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prop: User:Jayjg 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway admonished to respect the actions of other administrators
4) Tony Sidaway is admonished to respect the actions of other administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Very sensible, a remedy for grownups. The Committee by signing off to this would be saying that I haven't been doing enough of the above and I need to pull my socks up.  No more need be said.  The community will know what to expect of me. --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * You're notorious for not respecting the actions of other admins, and for acting as if you, and only you, know what's best. If other admins treated you as you treat them, you'd have a hairy conniption, and rightly so. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * What's the point of this version of the workshop page? Tony had previously declared he wouldn't use someone else's refactored version, but now takes total ownership of this one? And now the talk page is blank s well, all back on the other pages.  How is this page better than the refactor that it replaced?  WP:OWN?? Ook?  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)