Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority yea 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 principles
1) Wikipedia administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block other users or IP addresses provided that Blocking policy is followed. Administrators


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 1:
 * Fred Bauder 12:50, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 14:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 1:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 1:

2) Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their "main" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 2:
 * Fred Bauder 12:50, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 14:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (until one of the various attempts to change this policy gets more than the 2/3 support most proposals seem to be wavering at).
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) - caveat - It is my opinion that the blocking policy is a disasterous mess and should be torn down and rewritten from scratch. Angela has suggested replacing it with the blocking policy from simple.


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 2:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 2:

Proposed temporary orders
1) {text of proposed orders}


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed temporary order 1:


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed temporary order 1:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed temporary order 1:

Proposed findings of fact
1) Sysops User:Hephaestos, User:Hcheney and User:Guanaco blocked User:Lir in violation of Blocking policy. 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (Admitting to trolling), a block for expressing the unpopular opinion that "trolling was no barrier to being a sysop" which Hephaestos considered, "Admitting to trolling". Unblocked by Guanaco, 18:56, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reverting Guanaco's unblocking of Lir, reinstating Hephaestos' block of 30 days - Guanaco please stop acting unilaterally). 05:08, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 24 hours (use of multiple sockpuppets to edit war) which he admits was a case of mistaken identity.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 1:
 * Fred Bauder 13:13, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 14:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (also noting Heph's two blocks in late January - cf /Evidence page)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 1:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 1:

Proposed remedies
1) All Wikipedia administrators are required to follow the requirements set forth in Blocking policy. All Wikipedia administrators must set forth in the block log a reference to the part of Blocking policy on which they are relying in making the block.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:
 * Fred Bauder 13:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 14:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 1:
 * Martin 16:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (though that will normally be no more than "vandalism" or " " or similar. I prefer #3, but will support #1 if and only if #3 does not pass)

2) Hephaestos has previously been warned for making inappropriate use of blocks. Accordingly Hephaestos is instructed to only use blocks in clear-cut cases, and given a second warning. Further problems may result in the revocation of Hephaestos's sysop priviledges.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:
 * Martin 16:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (reluctantly)
 * Fred Bauder 20:53, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 2:
 * What Heph did (blocking someone for an unpopular opinion) was wrong. However, this was an obvious case of trolling. I will not chastise an admins for common-sense attempts to prevent that. &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

3) All Wikipedia administrators are instructed to follow the Blocking policy. Administrators who have been criticised in arbitration rulings are required to set forth in the block log a reference to the part of Blocking policy on which they are relying in making the block. At the time of writing these are: RickK, Hephaestos, Ed Poor, Guanaco, and Hcheney. All other administrators are encouraged but not required to do the same.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 3:
 * Martin 20:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (but I'll support #1 if this does not pass)
 * Fred Bauder 20:53, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) (covering all bases)
 * James F. (talk) 12:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 3:
 * I don't like the idea of setting special requirements for some admins and not others. &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 3:

Enforcement
1) When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block was reversed.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 1:
 * Fred Bauder 13:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 17:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 1:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 1:

2) Should it come to the attention of any Wikipedia user that a block made under Blocking policy is not supported by the facts of the matter, they are encouraged to enter into the Dispute resolution process in order that the underlying fact dispute may be resolved.


 * Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 2:
 * Fred Bauder 13:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 17:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 08:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 2:


 * Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 2:

Discussion by arbitrators
I feel we should enforce something more "convincing" than this, but since I can't think of anything, and sice we do trust the administrators and the overall process has worked relatively smooth so far, I think the proposed resolution is enough at this point in time. Should things worsen, we will probably re-open this issue under another incarnation. --Gutza 14:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The warning to Heph might be more convincing - if supported. *shrug* Martin 18:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Closing case

 * 1) I move that this case be closed. Martin 15:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support closure Fred Bauder 16:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)+
 * 3) Support. James F. (talk) 18:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --the Epopt 21:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Time to move on. &rarr;Raul654 21:41, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)