Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Workshop

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.

Motions and requests by the partiesEdit

Comments by MrmiscellaniousEdit

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Would MrM care to comment? -Edbrown05 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

MrMiscellanious will consult with other admins for issues related to other parties to this caseEdit

1) MrMiscellanious shall consult other administrators via WN:ALERT before engaging in administrative actions towards other parties to this case - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

MrMiscellanious shall follow WN:E and refrain from harassing other usersEdit

1) MrMiscellanious shall follow the Wikinews Etiquite guidelines, specifically Don't ignore questions and Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. 2) MrMiscellanious shall refrain from harassing other users (e.g. by making personal attacks, discouraging users to stop editing, etc) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctionsEdit

MrM will writeEdit

  • One hundred times: I will not impose my opinion! -Edbrown05 10:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Actually, it's a little beyond that. The bad mouthing and agressive attitude is a put off to users. -Edbrown05 10:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this idea, it is stupid and insulting --Cspurrier 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Going a little far on that one, Ed? That's quite an assertion for someone who's supposed to be an arbitrator. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this proposal is appropriate. I am sure MrM isn't a naughty little school boy who needs to write it on a blackboard - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats why we have a sandbox (: (sorry couldn't resist). yeah, yeah, this isn't appropriate in the current situation. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Personally I think this entire thing goes against what a Wiki is. Totaltarian control by the Arb's? Not allowing the COMMUNITY to vote on issues that IMO were NEVER brought before the community or never gave the community the chance to see any issues? This entire thing is rediculous and is totally against the principals of Wikinews...We are not a government nor is anyone more powerful than the next. We are a community and issues get solved as such. Jason Safoutin 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MrMiscellanious administrative privileges on WikinewsEdit

1) Earnest efforts by contributors to publish news stories have been blocked by MrMiscellanious who used administrative privileges in an abusive, rather than inclusive, manner. That situation should not continue, and MrMiscellanious will not intervene at any administrative level on news story production.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Support. -Edbrown05 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This temporary injunction would prevent MrM from using admin buttons on any news article until arbitration is complete, right? What about the simple vandalism of articles? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point, simple vandalism reverts and blocks are part of administrative duties. But it seems that it is more simple to revoke all the admin buttons of MrM. There are plenty of admins on Wikinews, and there is not a problem of vandals going un-reverted. Make a wholesale revoke of admin priviledges until this possibly drawn out issue can be resolved. -Edbrown05 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you propose a technical solution (have a Steward actually temporarily desysop him) or a non-technical solution (instruct him not to use his privileges but don't actually de-admin him)? If he will agree, I would suggest a non-technical solution. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the technicalities. MrM should stop for now, participation at an administrative level. -Edbrown05 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  • Provide the proof that all other admins haven't violated policy before. If that's what I'm here for, then every single admin is guilty of it. I do not see any good in me giving up my admin privileges, especially on what everything I see of this case is in issue with my editor status. Ed, I don't want to ask you to recuse yourself, so please be objective. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like "proof" is gonna happen. You made none or no comments in reply to the position you find yourself in, but go about doing stuff that has been objected to by the community! -Edbrown05 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Watch your comments. I do not wish to get into a dispute with you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -Neutralizer MrM's unilateralism,combativeness,disruption and abuse of admin privileges seem to be intensifying while this arbitration is in progress; "02:24, 29 March 2006 Mrmiscellanious deleted ". Pentagon and White House plan for Nuclear War" (Editorials NOT IN USERSPACE WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT)"[1]
  • Agree. Nontechnical temporary injunction if Mrm clearly state that he accept it. Otherwise technichal. International 12:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
While there's nothing technically wrong with it, it's probably not entirely appropriate to be voting "Support" and "Oppose -- especially for non-arbcom members. This page exists to discuss ways to resolve disputes and this section specifically to develop temporary remedies (injunctions) -- arbitrators are expected to divide between Support, Oppose, Abstain, etc, but for the community to do so may be more divisive than is actually necessary. I don't mean at all to say that input is not desired or permitted -- it is welcomed. Let's do try, however, to minimize divisions if at all possible. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Noted. International 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Also noted, however, I see that this section is reserved for "comment by parties" so it is not entirely appropriate for Chiacomo to be addressing/correcting parties in this section. Also, I feel that Chiacomo's "non-technical" approach would simply be another layer of prejudicial deflection/protection in the already substantial armour of MrM. Noone here really takes Chiacomo's suggestion seriously and MrM has already rejected any type of voluntary compliance. Please let's treat each other as intelligent, as well as gentle, beings. Neutralizer 21:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not support this, the alleged abuse of administrative privellege is a small part of this case to make an injunction on that would mean that an injunction on his editorial status would be required (which I also would not support). I do believe however that MrM should consult with another admin about issues arising on articles which parties to this case are involved in - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a bit problematic as written, and tries to prohibit use of administrative powers in editorial matters, which is prohibited to begin with. The idea of partial admin powers is itself a bit problematic, there should not be partial trust in this. The resolution should say (IMO) that admin powers are suspended for the duration of the process pending resolution, and let the arbiters make the injunction if they feel it becomes necessary. If the parties and others weigh in and say it should happen immediately (or not), because they are sure it must happen eventually (or not), so be it. If this happens, he can fight vandalism as we all do, revert if appropriate and ask for protection if necessary. It will be useful for him to participate without sysop powers strapped-on. I agree that a ban on editing is not warranted yet. StrangerInParadise 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Although my vote does not count, again the whole thing is rediculous. Jason Safoutin 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Suspension of MrMiscellanious' administrative privileges pending resolution of this caseEdit

Whereas breaches in good conduct have been both serious and consequential, MrMiscellanious' administrative privileges on Wikinews are suspended immediately pending resolution of this case.

Comments by arbiters:
Comments by parties:
  • Support. Having thought about it a bit, either NSW or Abu Graib alone merit this. In my view this one edit (with summary) makes the entire case. StrangerInParadise 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not support this, the alleged abuse of administrative privellege is a small part of this case to make an injunction on that would mean that an injunction on his editorial status would be required (which I also would not support). I do believe however that MrM should consult with another admin about issues arising on articles which parties to this case are involved in - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
How does this in any way impose on his ability to edit? StrangerInParadise 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That is my exact point if we are going to remove his administrative eprivelleges for what is a small part of the case we should do something about the major problems with the case which involve editing, to take action on one and not the other would seem lopsided. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, any administrative abuse is significant by itself, and if there is an even bigger editing problem, so much the worse: how can one who cannot peacefuly edit serve as an admin? It is not lopsided: the threshhold for revocation of adminiship should be lower than that for revocation of editorship. I'll stand by my opinion that a period as a non-admin editor should be offered, though I would look at other additional options as well. StrangerInParadise 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments by others:
De-admin does NOT come through ArbCom...its come through the community. The community votes on this process not ArbCom. Jason Safoutin 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I really oppose this. I know my vote doesn't count here, but I find the idea of this really distasteful. As much as I'm sure MrMiscellanious has rubbed a few people the wrong way, I don't feel he should be de-admined for justified good faith edits. He's a good editor. He's a good admin. The opinions of three or four users should not warp the image of someone who successfully works among hundreds. irid:t 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comment does matter, and this is where you would put it, well done! Even if this one edit (with summary) is deemed to be in good faith, consider the many violations within it,
  • The items in the edit were well-sourced
  • The items in the edit were NPOV
  • Even if either of these assertions are false, both are editorial matters, in which admins do not enjoy special privilege to rule summarily
  • Even if either of these assertions are false, both are editorial matters, for which the next prescribed step is negotiation (i.e. ask for a source, or cite an NPOV alternative)
  • The specific offending items were not identified
  • There is no basis in policy for blocking on one partial revert, but it is nevertheless threatened
  • Even if it were, MrM is now editorially involved, which means that per WN:BP he cannot block (but subsequently does, for four days, claiming both 3RR and disruption)
  • The items are now part of the story, so how POV and unsourced could they have been then?
  • The {{inuse}} flag was restored to prevent other edits, though the article had not been edited for one hour twenty (1:20).
This is not a "minor policy violation", this is several major policy violations. This is an admin starting an edit war, then using the block to prevail in it. He goes on to make more (empty) threats when I oppose him,"Also, if you ever try to initiate a conflict just to get out of a block again, you will be reported to ArbCom.". This does not make for "a good admin". We need to stop making excuses and treat this with the gravity it merits, especially as further bad has followed, much also involving admin abuse. I say pull his ticket now.
StrangerInParadise 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-analysis of caseEdit

1) This case should be re-analyzed for its validity by the arbcom members, on grounds of the following:

  1. Only three other parties besides myself in this case engaged in Dispute Resolution; there are now six. Only half of these went through at least some of the required steps before Arbitration.
  2. Five days passed; only 66.67% of arbcom members accepted this case, which hasn't been a majority on this wiki in any other places (RfA, etc.)
  3. No single dispute or case of rule-breaking was defined by all parties as the reason for the case.<br\>"The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with only the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking."
  4. Dispute resolution is supposed to make sure that "flames and personal attacks are not acceptable" in cases (#4). There was no recursion for said instances.

More than one individual made a bad choice to jump the gun on this Arbcom case, ignoring many recommendations that are given to cases before they are presented. Because of this, I am asking that the arbitrators take another look at this case, the users' comments, and the Arbcom guidelines before advancing any further on this case. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
The ArbCom operates on a simple majority (basically).. However, if MrM will consent to actively participate in dispute resolution/mediation, I would probably support suspending this arbitration until that process is completed. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I personnaly think that this is a little to late, MrM had his chance to voice objections. He choose not to. However if he can get the other parties to agree, then I see no problem with suspending arbitration. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
It should be noted that I had notified MrM of my statements on the dispute resolution page seven days before bringing this to ArbCom. Basically, because MrM wouldn't participate I saw a need for the disputes to go further - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks to me as Mrm try to block the arbritation process on technicalities. I have no faith that Mrm will cooperate better in a dispute resolution. He also stated his unintrest [2] . But he can of cause prove that Im wrong on this. International 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No. I hate the arbcom, and always will. I probably won't edit this page anymore. But just because I say that doesn't give others a free pass to breaking those guidelines. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I attempted DR with MrM and he rejected it outright. He says he hates the arbcom and I believe him...but that doesn't give MrM a free pass to continue breaking all of the etiquette and anglo/american centric pov guidelines. Neutralizer 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I'm an American who supported Bush in the last elections. I'm a threat to this wiki - greatly. But you aren't - noo. Not at all. Pssh. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
MrM has a point with the number of people who were involved in the original dispute resolution. At the same time this could be seen as both ways. Those who added themselves to this who weren't involved in the dispute resolution could argue that the process would be useless because MrM refused to participate - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
All issues are to be solved by means of the community first. If that fails then Arbcom. This is rediculous. When did the communtriy get a chance to solve this? Wikinews is not a place for back end politics and this is not a dictatorship. Community comes before Arbcomm. Jason Safoutin 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the answer to that Jason, is MrM rebuffed earlier requests to engage in Dispute resolution. -Edbrown05 06:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This issue was brought before the ArbCom before the community had a chance to make their decision. This is a communty and you (the committee) is treating this as a theater of war. Jason Safoutin 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
When it became clear that MrM wouldn't participate in the informal dispute resolution process, wouldn't respond to a single issue that had been raised, and wouldn't speak to any of the participants, what do you think the next step should have been? - Borofkin 01:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Really? I seem to have resolved every issue with every story and matter with every user WITHOUT ArbComs help. I have been here about 3 1/2 months now and this is the FIRST time I have heard of this matter. I will say this again and for the last time: Wikinews is NOT place for anyones personal war. If you have "personal" issues with someone take it off site. Wikinews is NOT here to be a theatre of war. Secondly and for the last time, de-admin whether anyone likes it or not, comes through the COMMUNITY NOT ArbCom. Admins are voted in by the communtiy, they get voted out by the community. As I have not seen ANY attempt to resolve this issue in the time that I have been here other than bringing it here to ArbCom, then ArbCom has no authority nor the power to de-admin anyone in this particular matter. Let it be known that the community has the right first and formost to decide who is an admin and who is not. Jason Safoutin 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jason you may have missed this Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others. There was also discussion on some talk pages but none of them seemed to be resolved. I agree that issues should be resolved by the community, but when one of the parties will not work with the community in resolving those issues we need to use ArbCom - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said. Regardless, De-AdMin comes through the community. I will say this one last time: This issue was IMMEDIATELY brought to ArbCom. I did nosee this particular issue until it appeared on ArbCom. IMO, NO other means of dispute resolution was ever given a chance. Again: Take personal wars and issues offf this site. Jason Safoutin 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue wasn't bought immediately to ArbCom, it was bought seven days after I notified MrM about my statement on the Dispute resolution page which had been ignored - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a motion, not an injunction.
As this is a motion, I would encourage the ArbCom to examine it on its own merits. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

TemplateEdit

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed final decisionEdit

Proposed principlesEdit

Administrators enforce arbcom findingsEdit

1) If the user(s) refuse to abide by the arbcom, Administrators will block them or disscuss with arbcom how best to impose its decision onto the parties. Bawolff ☺☻  05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I was under the impression of thats how it was supposed to work when I origionally read the policies and proposals sourounding the arbcom. Bawolff ☺☻  05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Evidently, MrM believes ArbCom is not yet validated as a way to decide if there has been an a abuse of administrative authority in this community. A poll to reckon with that issue is here. -Edbrown05 10:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the best way to enforce arbcom decisions are with existing community procedures. If some one disobeys an arbcom decisions, block them. If they are an admin or another admin unblocks them put up a RFdA. I doubt a RFdA will fail with what would be a clear violation of community consensus. --Cspurrier 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
This would be a good idea, if the findings of this case are not enforced then the community will lose faith in the ArbCom process - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
ArbCom is curently the only focus here on Wikinews. If you have a personal issue with a user then take it off this site. Wikinews is NOT a theatre of war and ArbCom is just an excuse to create more issues, to which you do not allow the community to vote on. Read WN:NOT and take personal issues/wars elsewhere. Jason Safoutin 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the ArbCom is empowered to suggest responses, including guidelines for blocking for admins but also including requests to Stewards for temporary or permanent removal of adminship. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when Arbcom has the authority to do so. Since IMO and since I have been here, there has been no other means to resolve this. This was immediately brought to this committee and IMO the communtiy never had the chance to comment. Byy doing this, the community is not allowed to vote on De-admin. If anyone gets de-admined, the community votes on it and thats that. Jason Safoutin 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom is empowered to request a desysopEdit

ArbCom is empowered on behalf of the community to revoke from a subject of their deliberations all administrative privileges, and request the steward remove sysop powers. It is further empowered to bar any such subject from restanding for adminship for a period of up to six months.

Comment by arbiters:
  • This is probably unnecessary. Either the stewards accept a ruling from the ArbCom to de-sysop someone, in which case this is redundant, or they don't, in which case it is pointless. In general, I'm not sure this is within our mandate, especially the second part which bars people from running again. I realize that there is currently a WP ArbCom case which does exactly that but I don't feel that we should have such far reaching powers. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  • Support. A more technical analysis of this will follow.
You [Deprifry] are correct on the fundamental question: either the steward will support or not. The steward would make this decision based on whether ArbCom is legitimately acting on behalf of the community or not. By placing this principle and seeing it affirmed by the community- or not- ArbCom can then decide whether it has that support (or not) and pass the measure (or not). A precedent on this should be set. Six months seems like a good working limit. StrangerInParadise 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I support this principle. ArbCom should have the power to request a de-sysop where cases of severe administrative abuse have occured. For a perceived loss of trust within the community, ArbCom should request re-confirmation - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  • Oppose: I will agree once this MrM issue gets evaluated by the community first as there was never any attempt to do so. ArbCom is NOT ultimate power...this is a community not a dictatorship. Jason Safoutin 23:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is implicit in the creation of the ArbCom, but it is a reasonable principle finding. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, IMO ArbCom is NOT "implicit". It is not a reqirement of Wikinews. ArbCom does not have the ultimate power on this site. If it has ultimate power or is "implicit" then show me where in policy it says that because I do not seem to be able to find it. Jason Safoutin 10:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative status does not exceed the authority of news contributions that report on current events.Edit

  1. The primary goal of Wikinews is news. Any bias on the relevance of a news story has no meaning. News is new information.
  2. An article may not be suppressed for how or why it is relevant, i.e. that there can be no suppressible bias in the selection of a story, however obscure or movitated.
Comment by Arbitrators:
News is not neccesarily new information. It could be new details about an old event, Or a connection between new and old information that is intreasting. Bawolff ☺☻  23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"What's new?" is what what people want to know when they greet each other. I hope Wikinews can report on it. -Edbrown05 01:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I support this finding - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
What is unclear about that principle? -Edbrown05 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think if you compare the wording of this remedy with the wording of the one above, you'll find that SiP and Ed have two entirely different styles of writing and therefore probably have some difficulties understanding each other. OK, the relevance of my comment is slim but what the heck ;) --Deprifry|+T+ 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The relevance is better than slim. =) I think that Ed is proposing that an article may not be suppressed for how or why it is relevant, i.e. that there can be no suppressible bias in the selection of a story, however obscure or movitated, which I might be led to support, if I were more confident that I understood it. StrangerInParadise 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What you wrote is exactly the intended meaning of the principle SiP, thank you for collaborating, and I put it in the principle. -Edbrown05 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacksEdit

1) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

2) The Wiki software and Wikinews policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikinews articles. When disputes arise, editors are expected to engage in discussion with other users and suggest reasonable compromises with regard to article wording, content and research to support Wikinews articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Yes. Bawolff ☺☻  23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I support this finding but also suggest that we as a community formulate a policy such as w:WP:HAR. Even though such a policy would be instruction creep it also gives firm guidelines as to what to do in the case of harassment - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Consensus building and compromiseEdit

1) As put forward in Wikinews:Dispute resolution Wikinews works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikinews:Policies and guidelines such as Wikinews:Neutral point of view.

2) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Personal attacks are prohibitedEdit

1) Personal attacks damage the community and deter users, see Wikinews:Etiquette.

2) Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted.

3) Wikinews editors avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:)
Comment by parties:
This is a reasonable finding - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

ProvocationEdit

1) When user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user, it is inappropriate to provoke them, as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

AdministratorsEdit

1) Wikinews Administrators are expected to be ambassadors of and to the community and its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Administrators should be trusted members of the community and should set a good example for others to follow - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

responding is worse than startingEdit

1) To respond to a personal attack with another personal attack is significantly worse than making the first one.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. YES. Bawolff ☺☻  04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I dont think either is worse than the other. Both just show the level of maturity of those making the attacks - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Administrators may not use SysOp powers to prevail in editorial conflictEdit

1) Administrators may not use SysOp powers to prevail in editorial conflict. Their status as Administrators does not give them special standing as editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Support. I have commented and analyzed this elsewhere, and find support for it in policy. Links to be provided. StrangerInParadise 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is something that needs to be made clear to admiistrators - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of factEdit

A pattern having a certain je ne sais quoiEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Personal attacks by MrmiscellaniousEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious has made numerous personal attacks including calling users "babies", stating that are are "not fit" for Wikinews, users to "get the hell out of here", accusing users of being "lazy", and other attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is a fair finding given the evidence - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
On the "baby" part: Internation was being a baby and was attempting to force his POV and opinions on not just MrM but everyone invloved in that article. It was not a personal attack, but a statement of truth.
On the "not fit for Wikinews" part: International was attempting to incite violence, and or edit warring. His actions on the talk page and article in question are not fit for Wikinews, especially if one cannot follow WN:NPOV. International seems to hae an issue with that, even when voting for administrators on WN:A.
On the "lazy" part: I have to say again, I agree. At this moment lazy was a correct term. NPOV policy is to be followed at all times. Elliot K was not doing so. Who is he/she to say NPOV cannot be removed. Although I did not state my opinion there, I was offended by Elliots statement.
On "other attacks" part: Other attack, where? you cannot state that other attacks are made and then not state them. As far as I can see there were no attacks at all. MrM was being attacked, and he was defending himself. Jason Safoutin 10:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's exceptionally unlikely that a baby would be able to use a keyboard, much less contribute in the way that International does. A baby has tiny little fingers, and lacks the fine motor control to hit the correct keys. Babies also lack language, a prerequisite for participation in a Wiki. How could it possibly be a "statement of truth" that International is a baby? - Borofkin 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes he is a baby. I think his recent comments on WN:A support that finding. Jason Safoutin 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
comment Wikinews:Etiquette states: Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. To call someone lazy, or to suggest that they are babies, is labelling them. w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks (linked to from Wikinews:Etiquette), states that there is no excuse for making personal attacks. I support the finding of fact that Mrmiscellanious has made numerous personal attacks. - Borofkin 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Guess what. I see personal attacks by International and Neutralizer constantly. They do not get anything for it. So if they are not going to, then I and MrM have the right to defend ourselves, and thats what he was doing. Jason Safoutin 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "get anything for it". The first step in dealing with personal attacks is to contact the user in question on their talk page and let them know that personal attacks are not permitted. It's possible that they don't realise their comments are considered offensive. If the personal attacks continue, it should be raised on WN:ALERT, the user should be warned, and if the personal attacks and disruption are ongoing and serious, a block may result. Neutralizer has been blocked many times for innapropriate behaviour. It's never acceptable to "defend yourself" by making personal attacks in return. - Borofkin 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not acceptable, but if policy was not broken in the first place by the attacker, then no defence would be needed. Your statement just proves to me that attacks are NOT dealt with regardless of where they are placed (WN:ALERT) or not. If the attacker had been handled initially, then no defense would have been needed. Jason Safoutin 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"If the attacker had been handled initially, then no defense would have been needed." The way that a personal attack should be "handled initially" is for the person who has been attacked to patiently explain to the attacker, on their talk page, how the attack made them feel, and why such attacks are unnacceptable. If you are attacked by International or Neutralizer in the future, this is what you should do. The best "defence" is not to sink to the level of the attacker, but to try and engage with them. - Borofkin 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt, with the highest level that humans can doubt, that any of those users were apologetic with their comments. Even if they were, I have no interest in hearing it from them. They made those comments. They have been attacking me, not for hours or days, but for months on end. I think I have a right to defend myself after that period. And if that's breaking a policy, then I'll say the hell with policy. There's no way I'm going to stand around here, when nothing is done about them, defenseless. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. International's attacks have and continue without any interaction from ANY other admins. IMO, International is not engageable and. He refuses to collaborate on articles but rather attacks any users who try to do collaborate with him/her. His refuseal to collaboarte goes against WN:NPOV. He continues his attacks and if you or no one else wants to do anything about it, MrM and everyone else has the right to defend themselves whether you like iot or not. Jason Safoutin 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If things are really this bad then the issue should probably be taken to Wikinews:dispute resolution or Wikinews:Mediation alerts. Jason, I see that this has already occurred with you and Neutralizer. I urge you to pursue that process rather than engaging in "defence" of the type you and MrM have described here. How will "defence" of the type described in this finding of fact improve the situation? - Borofkin 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And I urge International and such to take their issues to either one of those sections as they obviously have personal issues with MrM, and others. And I still urge that this is not a place for them tyo engage in personal wars. If they have a problem with someone, and cannot handle the situation like adults, then maybe they need to think about going somewhere else. IMO, any attempt to solve ANY problem with International or Neutralizer has been unsuccessful and will continue to be unsuccessful as they do not with to engage in "dispute resolution". Apparently, warring and attacking is more important to them. Jason Safoutin 11:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Jason is the baby and mini-M; on almost every non-article edit he makes. Neutralizer 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep it under the Sludge page, Neut. There's not enough space on any wiki to fill it with all the things you throw at people. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"And I urge International and such to take their issues to either one of those sections..." Jason, International has already taken his issue with MrM to Wikinews:Dispute resolution. - Borofkin 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, he didn't. None of the users brought up "points". They were attacks. Nothing but attacks. That breaks one of the dispute's rules, but obviously those aren't being looked at, either. I am dumbfounded by users who claim the dispute resolution is anything but detrimental. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Even certain users have made personal attacks in thier comments. Please refrain from doing this it is unacceptable - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by other usersEdit

1) Other involved users have also engaged in personal attacks

Comment by Arbitrators: This probably needs to be backed up by specific diffs. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I agree with Deprifry, this needs to have examples - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Mrmiscellanious has failed to collaborateEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious has failed at times to adequately collaborate and communicate during article creation -- thereby sidestepping the consensus building process essential to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators: Also needs to be backed up by diffs. --Deprifry|+T+ 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I agree with Deprifry again - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Mrmiscellanious has used SysOp powers to prevail in editorial conflictEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Support. Several instances, links to be provided. It would be a grave error to not address this. StrangerInParadise 22:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Given the evidence this is reasonable - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remediesEdit

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.

Mrmiscellanious is de-sysopedEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious is technically de-sysoped by a Steward immediately. He is eligibile immediately for reconfirmation by the community in a regular RfA, lasting no less than one week, to commence two weeks from close of this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • I have started adding proposed remedies that *I* have confidence in... :D I don't necessarily have confidence in this remedy, but I suspect others may. I'm trying to remain positive in this arbitration and I don't belive de-sysoping MrM is a positive step -- reconfirmation is a positive step, in my opinion, and will accomplish the same goal if it is the community's will. Administrators should be created and uncreated by the community -- not the ArbCom -- except perhaps in extreme cases. If MrM's administrative activities should be curtailed prior to a reconfirmation we can modify the other remedy on the /Proposed page. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  • Support. StrangerInParadise 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the cleanest and most ethical choice I think because;
The only qualification for being admin is that they have the community's trust; that has not been the case with MrM since a majority voted for de-sysop at his last RfdA; so, he should have resigned immediately after that RfdA. At this point it seems he has the trust of about 20% of the community; it is only because the 20% who still trust and support him consists of 4 very assertive and active admins/bureaucrat that he has retained and been able to use (and threaten to use) his privileges this long. Having him de-sysoped is long over-due simply because he does not meet the one qualification for being an admin; "You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that...you are trusted by the community."
"Why not de-sysop?" What's the downside to the community with desysoping? He can always be re-nominated and can continue to contribute by writing and editing articles. I don't buy the "positive/negative" false polarization argument(above). If adminship is "no big deal" then neither should being elected nor de-sysoped be a "big deal". The really "negative" aspect to all of this is the "House of Lords Syndrome" consisting of an "in for life" expectation that seems to have taken hold of some admins.
Re-confirmation is designed to accomodate the "House of Lords Syndrome" because re-confirmation is achieved at a substantially lower level of community trust than initial adminship (with no rational reasoning to support this discrepancy). Neutralizer 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
After being reminded of some administrative abuses on MrM's part I am unsure how I feel about this - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
The community makes this decision not ArbCom. Jason Safoutin 07:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious is blocked for 1 monthEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious is blocked from editing Wikinews for 1 month.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • Again, I don't necessarily have confidence in this remedy, but I thought it should be on the table and discussed.
Comment by parties:
Agree with Chiacomo on this one; it wouldn't acomplish anything. Neutralizer 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not support this. All it would serve to do would alienate MrM - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have supported the desysop option. I would like to see a period of time wherein MrM edits as an ordinary user, and give him the clearest possible chance to do so. My fundamental problem with his being an admin is his many confusions of policy with personal view, which is manageable in an ordinary user, but unacceptable in an admin. StrangerInParadise 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Go read Eloquence's comments on Amgine's de-editing proposal for Neutralizer, long blocks are ineffective at resolving problems. Nyarlathotep 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious shall be subject to re-confirmation as administratorEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious shall be subject to re-confirmation as an administrator by the community. This Request for Adminship shall begin 14 days after the close of this arbitration and proceed as normal with a 7 day duration. Mrmiscellanious shall remain an administrator following the close of this arbitration unless consensus is not reached to reconfirm him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • This remedy leaves MrM with his sysop powers at least until the reconfirmation is concluded. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a fairly reasonable option --Deprifry|+T+ 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Please describe the "re-confirmation" process and level of consensus required to re-confirm. I thought I read somewhere that reconfirmation is by simple majority rather than consensus? Please clarify the specifics of this option. Neutralizer 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The reconfirmation process would be a regular Request for Adminship with the same requirements for broad consensus. That broad consensus is not defined in policy -- and I would oppose defining it in policy -- but I feel certain it is more than a simple majority... if the community decides to vote (they could find another way to confirm administrators). --Chiacomo (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this solution would address the concerns some users have about MrM no longer being trusted by the community - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Right...the commuity votes of de-admin. PERIOD. Jason Safoutin 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How can you say the "community" does not trust MrM, when this is in ArbCom? You NEVER gave thecommunity to make that decision, you brough this issue to arbcomm immediately. By doing so, you make it so the community is NOT allowed to vote on the de-admin of MrM...NOT FAIR and against the principals of Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This. was the entire community, Jason; it was before Arbcom. I count 9 for de-sysop and 6 against. 40% trust level does not equal "the trust of the community" imo. Neutralizer 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, ArbCom is NOT the community. I am not part of this committee so I cannot vote. This is not a community and ANY de-admin MUST be decided upon EVERYONE on Wikinews, NOT just this comittee. Admins are voted in by the community, and they get voted out by the community. Jason Safoutin 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jason, this particular remedy would leave MrM with his adminsitrative privileges until the community has voted to reconfirm them. If he gains the overwhelming consensus necessary to be confirmed (as is the standard for all RfAs), he will remain an administrator. If he fails to gain the consensus necessary, he will no longer be an admin... He can, of course, request adminship again at any time. In this way the community *does* get to vote on his adminship. The problem with a request for de-adminship is that historically, an overwhelming consensus is required to de-admin. This is a failsafe to prevent a disaffected faction from easily removing an administrator (for whatever reason). Wikinews has never de-admined an administrator, though there have been moves to do so. This re-confirmation is a different approach, but similar to a RfDA. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jason please read Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others, MrM chose to ignore that process leaving no alternative than to bring the dispute to ArbCom. Seven days passed since I notified MrM of my attempt at dispute resolution and me filing a request for ArbCom. MrM chose to ignore the former forcing an ArbCom request. Also, I said that this proposal addresses the concerns some have about MrM not being trusted by the community. Re-confirmation is a community process which is decided by a community vote- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious reconfirmation as administrator to be decided by voteEdit

1) The adminstrative buttons of Mrmiscellanious are removed until a new request by the community to support them is approved. A new Request for Adminship shall begin 14 days after the close of this arbitration, and proceed with a 7 day duration.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • Copied from proposed page so we can talk about it -- this version of the remedy contradicts itself... It says in the first sentence that the buttons are removed and in the last sentence that he shall remain a functioning administrator.
We can't have it both ways. It's possible that this remedy could be revised in such a way that it doesn't contradict itself. I think both remedies should be considered as one seems to strip the power immediately and the other waits for the community to do it.
If the remedy intends to "remove his buttons", the language should be changed to say that he will be de-admined until after the confirmation vote -- if this is the intention of the remedy, it can be greatly simplified and shortened to basically be the other remedy on this page which simply deadmins MrM.
Also, I don't like using the word "vote" in the heading.. :D --Chiacomo (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Looking / thinking. -Edbrown05 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I did see a duality of purpose with the proposal, first the admin buttons are revoked, second the community decides whether or not to restore them. -Edbrown05 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that answers people who are seeking relief from MrMiscellanious interjecting in articles at an administrative level. Then it gives the community the forum to cast their vote on the issue. -Edbrown05 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  • Conditional support. There should only be retention, suspension, or revocation of administrative privilege. No partials, etc. In this case, suspension. StrangerInParadise 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please describe the "re-confirmation" process and level of consensus required to re-confirm. I thought I read somewhere that reconfirmation is by simple majority rather than by a consensus as required for new admins? Please clarify the specifics of this option. Neutralizer 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC
Comment by others:
Admins are VOTED in. The arbcrom has NO right to take those privilages. It is up to the commnity to decide who is an administrator and who is not. Arbcrom does not hold that power single handedly and if Arbcrom decides to do so then they go AGAINST the principals of this Wiki. You want to de admin someone then do it right. Jason Safoutin 07:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Heard that. No disagreement there. -Edbrown05 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
De-Admin, how was that never accomplished at Wikinews. -Edbrown05 07:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an accomplishment, didn't mean for it to sound that way. -Edbrown05 07:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How would this be decided right? A vote, where the community takes its time to evaluate all the extensive evidence, and write opinions about their minutes of time spent on the bullcrap, or the problem gets handled at this point without personal intervention. Dunno, -Edbrown05 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I mean you can look at this ArbCom poll and see how involved the voting is here. But at the same time, I see a greater presence in news production. So what does that say? --> people want to vote on this? Dunno. -Edbrown05 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing it as something no one wants to be involved with other than the fact that a disposition of the issue will relieve Wikinews from dealing with something that has so far gone unresolved. -Edbrown05 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Jason, the conundrum is that any new admin is a "pig in a poke". The community does not know how they'll behave as an admin. We have elected this Arbcom to deal with exactly this (MrM) type of circumstance. The alternative is a "House of Lords" or "academic tenure" situation where we simply can not remove admin privileges from admins even when they have lost the trust of the majority of the community. It takes virtually a multiple major felony (in legal terms) to have a successful RfDa..and even then, with 3 or 4 unconditional supporters, the admin in question can beat the RfDa. Just imagine a member of Congress or Parliament, with only 20% or so support from his/her constituents, who had no term limit and it took an impeachment vote of 90% to have him removed.Arbcom is our only way to deal with this type of situation as well as for problematic editors.I myself might find myself before Arbcom at anytime and then you may be glad that the community has given them this type of authority. Neutralizer 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No. From what I hear ArbCom was created for you. MrM has been here a year+. That is not a new admin. You cannot say that MrM has lost any trust in the community because you are not allowing the community to vote. ArbCom will not allow the community to vote, and again that goes against this Wiki. Well guess what, the community never had a chance to voice their opinion/vote. Like I said before, take your wars somewhere else. Jason Safoutin 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong you are, Jason. You may not have been around when the last RfDa vote on MrM was taken; here it is. I count 9 for de-sysop and 6 against. The trust is simply not there (well I suppose it was a 40% level of trust). Neutralizer 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I could care less what the votes of Arbcom say. A de-admin comes from the community not ArbCom PERIOD. Voting on Wikinews is NOT upposed to be limited to this committee. If ANYONE is to get de-admind it is to be voted upon by the community. In this Situation, this so called issue wa never brought to the community, but brought immediately to the Arbcom. As I know, issues are to attempted to be solved by the community FIRST...this issue did not get that chance. Jason Safoutin 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This. was the entire community, Jason; it was before Arbcom. I count 9 for de-sysop and 6 against. 40% trust level does not equal "the trust of the community" imo.Neutralizer 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutralizer, you need to read before you copy and paste the same comments. I do not care what ArbCom says. This is NOT an issue for ArbCom and had NO reason to come here in the first place. Regardless, ArbCom, in this case, does NOT have the authority nor the right to de-sysop or de-admin ANYONE invloved unless the community agerees upon it. This is NOT a grounds for you or anyone else to take their hatred out on someone. Wikinews is NOT a theatre of war and everyone needs to take their personal POV of someone away from Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom had nothing to do with the vote I showed you,Jason; but you do not seem to understand that. I give up and will not be continuing this discourse with you. Neutralizer 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious shall acknowledge that his personal POV has occasionally guided his editsEdit

1) Mrmiscellanious openly acknowledge that his edits are not beyond NPOV concerns, and that he has made edits that do not meet NPOV policy in the past. He should give examples of such edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:
You can't force someone to acknowladge something. Thats like making someone say their sorry , when they really wern't, or didn't do it. It just doesn't do anything. I like mrm's response to this. Bawolff ☺☻  03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Excuse me, but I believe a "hell, no" is in order here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Oppose This statement is obviously a users personal POV and is completely uncalled for. Jason Safoutin 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I think this proposed remedy is unhelpful. - Borofkin 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't believe in forced confessions generally, and don't think it would be helpful here. StrangerInParadise 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely opppose; this is kind of offensive. irid:t 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fresh StartEdit

1) All parties of the conflict shall take care to assume good faith. In particular, after the formal conclusion of this arbitration process, all parties shall refrain to refer to parts of this dispute in order to make a point. In particular no party shall make statements like "You have a history of disruptive behaviour" in accordance with "Kicking them while they are down".

Comment by Arbitrators:
It's a good idea, but I don't feel the ArbCom could order a "fresh start". That's up to the participants. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the "start" of this case, MrMiscellanious has become entangled with more problematic issues over his behavior on the discussion page of these two stories: U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted in classified Pentagon report filed on 27 May 2003 and Flight 93 cockpit recorder played in Moussaoui trial, both of which were occurring in roughly the same time span, which would act to divide his attention and abilities to respond.
One would think a user who is currently being called into account for such behavior here in this forum, and who refused to engage in dispute resolution over these issues prior to having the case arrive at ArbCom, and who in the past was twice referred for de-administration over similar matters, would get the point and be careful to keep in check obstinate behavior during interaction with the community, especially now.
Yet, for example, this comment was directed towards user:Doldrums on a discussion page where contributors were attempting to understand any actionable objection put forward by MrMiscellanious for withholding an article from publication, "You have just failed Wikinews by ignoring the concerns of other users. This proves to me you are not keen to the idea of a community, and therefore are not fit for a wiki." That comment was a preface to the later edit directed towards the same user:

You and others have failed to read my statements. You have always done this in the history of this wiki. This is the final straw. In less than 20 minutes, I will revert this article one more time. This article does not conform to Wikinews' policies. You have been warned of that numerous times here. You have failed to heed those warnings. You have been given detailed information on those warnings; you have ignored them. You ignored to respond to another contributor's concerns. You do not wish to make this article conform to these policies. That is what you have told me and the community for your refusal to read or assess any of my concerns. That is extremely detrimental to this wiki, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

When in fact, it was MrMiscellanious who refused to address the concerns of the article's contributors by insisting his initial reaction(s) and objection(s) holding to a belief that his position was unassailable, and then enacted out a frustration over being challenged by other interested parties to the article by exhorting them to "look up", as if they hadn't already. Instead of expanding and specifying the problem with the article, it led to a hostile and unproductive situation.
The newbie User:Yrtsihpos was perhaps fully or partially blown out and away from Wikinews after that person's engagement with both articles' discussion pages (and I missed the Rumsfield article on that user's talk page that might have had bearing too). But check the person's user page. -Edbrown05 04:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
MrMiscellanious has acted to over-extend himself, and makes assertions that he speaks for the community, when as user:Karen pointed out during a tiff with MrM that "What I'm trying to get from you is some rational reasoning... Where the "We" usage by MrMiscellanious, while his status as an administrator has been called into question by other users, seems to suggest that he believes speaks for the communty. -Edbrown05 05:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I agree that following this arbitration we should all start on a clean slate - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
So do I. --vonbergm 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No. I've lost any and all respect for all the parties in this discussion. This was an inexcusable action, and hopefully some users will realize what they have done. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What have they done? -Edbrown05 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I vote the same as MrM. He engages in acute abusive behavior; and his unwillingness to change 1 iota indicates an even more serious disorder associated with a lack of conscience or ability to appreciate feelings of others. To just give him a "fresh start" would be a classic continuation of the co-dependent status much of the community already has with MrM and which hurts the peripheral community (new and casual users and readers) who have been maligned,insulted and turned-off by the hundreds by this rogue and,by extension,his facilitaters and co-dependents. Neutralizer 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your influence on others is exactly the reason I have lost all faith in every party in the dispute. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
hmmmm; maybe that's one of your problems; losing faith in yourself. Neutralizer 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Opposed to any remedy without any finding of fact. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutralizer, I will ask this only once. Refrain from your attacks. This is not a place for your personal battles. If you have personal issues with MrM or anyone then take them somewhere else. I will not sit here and let you treat Wikinews or ArbCom as your own theatre of war. Refer to WN:NOT if you need to. Jason Safoutin 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, (referring to Neutralizer and MrMiscellanious) please refrain from making comments that you both know are going to be inflamitory. Comments like the above are just useless except to further painful and bitter disputes. Jason, you are not the police. You aren't helping to maintain peace on this discussion; despite your best efforts I'm sure. The name of the game is "cool the hell off, everybody". Okay? irid:t 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Iron, you are right about that; I'm not reacting to the nastiness of M and mini-M anymore. Neutralizer 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I will refrain from Iron's suggestion as long as IP's like above continue to slander and smear these pages. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Having thought about this for a while, I don't find this stipulation acceptable. Removing one particular admin's ability to cite a previous pattern of abusive, disruptive, or aggressive behavior is not acceptable. These are the basis of blocks. You can't simply think "Yes, you've made numerous attacks on users in the past, but I can't say so because I'll get blocked if I do."
Considering the parties involved, and parties participating in disputes outside of this arbitration, previous histories of behavior are simply indicators of future behavior. Assuming good faith is wonderful, except when it comes down to personal, political, religious, racial, or other similar attacks. These things aren't "good-faith-able". Past history is a perfect indicator of these things.
Given this, I vehemetly oppose. irid:t 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

SuspendEdit

1) suspend until further notice. mrm Has made some intitives (User:Mrmiscellanious/Admin Code of Conduct) That I think basicly address the problems with him. If these work out, I think it will work much better than any solution the arbcom comes up with.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • The only concern I have, Is shoulds and Musts. In the past mrm's been accused of using policys in a favouritistic way by ignoreing shoulds when it suits him. I don't think after recent events thats going to be an issue, as everyones being careful not to step on each others toe. However, its still a thought hanging in the back of my mind. Bawolff ☺☻  04:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If the purpose of this remedy is to suspend this arbitration, it should probably be listed as an injunction. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  • Question. I do not understand what this proposes: suspend what until further notice? I am holding further comment until this is clarified. StrangerInParadise 05:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (to Chiacomo). It would not be an injunction, but only a motion to suspend, as no one is enjoined from doing anything. The logical place for it is /Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators in a new section called Motion to suspend, or a party or arbiter may make it at /Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties. I would prefer that it happen on the /Workshop page as others may comment on it. StrangerInParadise 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The things listed on that page are what I try to do already. I do applaud MrM for attempting to codify some of the principles already used in the community by it's administrators. The only issue is suspending this ArbCom because of them. Most administrators have followed a similar set of "unwritten" rules for quite some time which MrM appeared not to have. This makes it hard for me to believe he will just because it has been codified. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Support. Jason Safoutin 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcementEdit

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidenceEdit

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

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

TemplateEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussionEdit

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: