all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.
2) Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Guanaco blocked Cantus, believing that Cantus had violated his revert parole, whereas in fact Cantus had limited his reverts to a barely acceptable level. On being informed of his error, Guanaco reversed it.
2) Cantus appears to have ignored the recommended method of resolving blocks in error, instead choosing to cross-post to the village pump and various admin talk pages. Guanaco reverted these edits.
3) Guanaco's actions as an administrator have been consistently controversial - notably his use of the protection, unprotection, blocking, and unblocking facilities.
4) Cantus has continued to engage in sterile and pointless edit wars, such as on Clitoris and Siberia.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.
2) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. The exact mechanism by which to make this decision is a matter for the community to choose. If the community cannot agree on a mechanism, the arbitration committee suggests a re-application at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
3) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. Guanaco is required to reapply for adminship at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected.
4) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).
Aye:
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
I'm proposing some ideas without actually supporting them here - I'm after a little feedback, I guess. This is what my gut says, but I need to check the background further first.
FoF #3 and remedy #2 is there as reaction to Ambi's comments, which I consider part of the case. If this had been the only controversial thing Guanaco did, this would likely not have made arbitration, so it seems relevant. Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's within our remit to de-sysop folks, so I feel it's also within our remit to require them to reapply for sysophood. Martin 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somehow this one slipped under my radar. Although I have been requested to vote on it, I am not familiar with the facts and would add nothing of value. I believe enough have voted to provide valid support for a decision. Fred Bauder 21:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Four Aye votes needed to close case
all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.
2) Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Guanaco blocked Cantus, believing that Cantus had violated his revert parole, whereas in fact Cantus had limited his reverts to a barely acceptable level. On being informed of his error, Guanaco reversed it.
2) Cantus appears to have ignored the recommended method of resolving blocks in error, instead choosing to cross-post to the village pump and various admin talk pages. Guanaco reverted these edits.
3) Guanaco's actions as an administrator have been consistently controversial - notably his use of the protection, unprotection, blocking, and unblocking facilities.
4) Cantus has continued to engage in sterile and pointless edit wars, such as on Clitoris and Siberia.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.
2) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. The exact mechanism by which to make this decision is a matter for the community to choose. If the community cannot agree on a mechanism, the arbitration committee suggests a re-application at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
3) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. Guanaco is required to reapply for adminship at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected.
4) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).
Aye:
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
I'm proposing some ideas without actually supporting them here - I'm after a little feedback, I guess. This is what my gut says, but I need to check the background further first.
FoF #3 and remedy #2 is there as reaction to Ambi's comments, which I consider part of the case. If this had been the only controversial thing Guanaco did, this would likely not have made arbitration, so it seems relevant. Martin 15:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's within our remit to de-sysop folks, so I feel it's also within our remit to require them to reapply for sysophood. Martin 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somehow this one slipped under my radar. Although I have been requested to vote on it, I am not familiar with the facts and would add nothing of value. I believe enough have voted to provide valid support for a decision. Fred Bauder 21:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Four Aye votes needed to close case