Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/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 12 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 7 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
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 principles

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 move protecting articles to enforce a title preference.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Darwinek's administrative actions

1) Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has displayed a pattern of poor judgment in performing administrative actions, including blocking users (Ross.Hedvicek, Gene Nygaard, Mt7) with whom he was engaged in a dispute, and improperly move protecting articles to enforce a title preference.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Darwinek's incivility

2) Darwinek has engaged in incivil behavior and personal attacks ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]).

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {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.

Darwinek desysopped

1) For inappropriate use of administrative abilities, Darwinek is desysopped. He may reapply at any time via WP:RFA.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Wording and mechanics; see 1.1.[reply]
  2. FloNight 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Going with 1.1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek desysopped

1.1) Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Want ArbCom to retain the ability to return administrative privileges. FloNight 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Darwinek placed on civility parole

2) Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I am generally not in favor of "civility parole" but since Dawinek, agrees he has a problem with civility, and has suggested a remedy like this in his statement on the workshop page, this might be appropriate in this case.[reply]
  3. --FloNight 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is an appropriate remedy. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Per User:UninvitedCompany/Parole. Removed in the interest of consensus.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek banned for 10 days

3) Darwinek's editing privileges are revoked for a period of 10 days. Upon his return, he is cautioned to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Punitive. Losing administrative tools is sending a strong message. FloNight 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merely punitive, and fails to address the long-term prospects here. Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I don't see this accomplishing anything useful.[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see this being helpful here. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

  • Straightforward close. Passed are principles 1 and 2, findings 1 and 2, and remedies 1.1 and 2. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. FloNight 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek/Proposed_decision&oldid=1138653416"