Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

 * Active
 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Mackensen
 * Morven
 * Paul August
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany


 * Inactive
 * Blnguyen
 * Flcelloguy

FIcelloguy has returned but is not active on cases that were opened while he was away. BInguyen and James F are now inactive. Thatcher131 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated, Jdforrester now participating. Newyorkbrad 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate proposal on the "involved vs. uninvolved" issue
Just a note that I've posted an intermediate proposal (proposed remedy 1.2 on the Workshop) regarding the issue of whether probation may be enforced by any administrator or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. Given that this is a belated proposal (sorry) and that Fred has already started drafting the proposed decision, I just didn't want it to be overlooked. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
In most cases where mediation was proposed Zero refused getting into mediation. Could we at least get a decision that makes it easier to mediate issues in which Zero is involve ?

It may requitre a 3rd party neutral help for him to see that there is another side to every issue and that his own one-sided POV is not better than the other side - which he usualy delete in the technique described here:

''Zero's most succesfull technique is to push out sources by claiming that the source is POV. He does that only to sources that are against his preffered POV. This is a subtle way to create an POV-biased article while creating the apreance that others use POV sources. This way also help Zero to present himself as the defender of NPOV and RS. Due to the heavy use of this technique many of Zero's edits are deletion of sources (only those that don't fit his prefered POV).''

'Thank You. Zeq 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'

Errata
There are a few spelling errors. May I point them out here? --Iamunknown 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. FloNight 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3.3.2
What does "advised" mean ("Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq")? Is it binding? Chick Bowen 07:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The (overly polite?) working is mine from the /Workshop. Obviously it's a weaker verb than something like "instructed," but note that in the Workshop, Zero0000 has said he plans to abide by this. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We normally use "advised" to mean just that - analogous to saying "we think that this is what you should do, but we do not feel that you need instruction as to exactly how and when you should do or not do a particular action; OTOH, remember that we may look unfavourably on those who fail to heed our advice in deciding future cases".
 * James F. (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what was the point?
I had already advised Zero not to use sysop tools against Zeq in the ANI discussion that preceded this case, a suggestion which he accepted. El_C 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Settling one way or the other the question of whether and when admins involved in editing an article can enforce probation remedies against another user of that article will be useful for the future. But even if the committee decides that "involved" admins should not enforce probation, there was a good-faith reasonable interpretation of the prior ArbCom decision implying that he could, and even some arbitrators interpreted the decision the same way, so it wouldn't be fair to punish him for adopting a good-faith although it turned out incorrect reading. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for calrification - "Rudeness by Zero0000"
Many attempts I made to comunicate with Zero0000 resulted in no answer. Others atempts resulted in insults.

It is the lack of response that worries me more than the insults. There are recent examples even as this arbitration goes on.

The first step to cooperative work and dispute resolution of any kind is comunication

Does ARBCOM consider lack of response as "rudness" ? What can be done to engahance comunication by Zero000 even with those editors he strongly dispises ? Thank you. Zeq 05:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

no answer was given to this request. Rudness by Zero continue as the arbCom case drawn to a close:

Zeq 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking of "generally" from proposed principle 4
Proposed principle 4 ("interpretation of Arbitration Committee decisions") is derived from a proposal I made on the Workshop. In voting for the principle, several arbitrators have suggested dropping the weasel-word "generally" from my draft (i.e., "generally should not be subject" would be changed to "is not subject"). Given that there is now a motion to close, if this change is going to be made, now is the time. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed principle 1 not passing in any form
Does closing this arbitration case now mean that the question over probation enforcement remains unanswered? I think that there ought to be some clarification over this to prevent similar arguments in the future. At present there is one remedy which makes an ad hoc solution for this particular case, and a finding of fact supporting it, but I think a passed proposed principle would be better and carry more weight. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Zero would know not to take such action again. Other admins knew better eeven without such decision. so all together this issue is settled. Zeq 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that a majority of the arbitrators haven't been able to agree on a position and are prepared to close the case without a definitive declaration on this issue. So in that sense it is fair to say that the issue is unsettled. However, this case also pretty clearly confirms that bringing in an "uninvolved" administrator to enforce probation will almost always be the by far safer and less divisive course of action to take. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)