text:
Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine/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.

Examples of inappropriate 'Userboxes'

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am interested in what can be supplied above, under the heading of Inappropriate Userboxes. -Edbrown05 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Suspension
1) Amgine's administrative privileges should be suspended

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * I suggest that Amgine's admitted actions were obvious and blatant abuses of administrative privilege. Therefore, regardless of any discussions about userboxes, Amgine's administrative privileges should be suspended by injunction immediately until this RfAr is completed. Neutralizer 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Zero-tolerance for such actions. StrangerInParadise 06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium
1) A moratorium is put on the creation of, deletion of, and undeletion of userboxes for the duration of the RfAr

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Support It does no one any good to have delete wars over them--Cspurrier 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Their use is the issue at hand, without them, there is no basis to form an opinion. -Edbrown05 02:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * I reluctantly support this request for a temporary injunction. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; I was very reluctant to propose it, I hope will only be on for a short time, - however with the recent undeletion/deletion matter. I feel it is neededBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I disagree: there is no policy against userboxes, but there is against arbitrary deletions, so they should all be restored immediately, and there should be an injunction only against further deletions. StrangerInParadise 09:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. By analogy,if someone feels that bluejean ads are too sexy for children to see in the subway and they go around town tearing down the posters and then get brought up on charges of willful damage to public property, it would be preposterous to declare a moratorium on bluejean ads for the duration of the hearing. Neutralizer 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of userboxes

 * 1) Userboxes can be used as an expression of personality by an individual user, or they can be used as a single purpose location to assemble a broad list of information on a given subject. -Edbrown05 06:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * User boxes a similiar to older user categorization systems like: Category:Interest in Science and technology,Category:Live in Oceania Category:User Categories, User directory etc. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Wikinews is not a webhost. It is not a purpose of Wikinews to express the personality of individual users.
 * Use of the category and template namespaces is not necessary; creative use of the What links here and subst: of userbox syntax on the user's page emulate that functionality. Since it is possible to do this, any further use of those namespaces would be using Wikinews as a webhost. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I believe it sends out a bad message to discuss any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. I don't think Arbcom was created to address or change Wikinews policy while simultaneously addressing an abuse of administrative privilege. In fact, I believe policy changes should go through a broader community consensus process before any Arbcom involvement. It appears to me that the committee's attention has been deflected from the issue of abuse of administrative privilege which is the only issue that was brought to the committee. Neutralizer 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe this should be allowed to play out between the involved parties without running a persecution campaign against either of the parties, or anyone who has expressed an opinion firmly on one side of the argument. The article count seems to yet again be suffering because people are getting tied up in policy and dispute discussions.  You, Neutralizer, cited the Template:Avian Flu infobox as something to be proud of.  Have you checked the edit history?  Build a list of things to do to keep away from policy and dispute.
 * The userbox issue needs careful thought, because there are aspects of the Babel system that are useful. However, having a box in russian to indicate someone is a russian speaker is useless unless it is also in english so, were I sourcing a story about an event in Russia I could ask a native speaker to search Russian sources.  The corruption of this goal and "pushing of the envelope" to have "fluent in Klingon" is what has led to the dispute.  I'm afraid my recommendation to the ArbCom would be to only allow Babel templates/boxes for languages which the wikimedia foundation has a wiki in.  Simple as that. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * We are at the cutting edge, gentlebeings. It would be wise to expect that some of the major cases to run through this court will not be the result of bad faith of an admin, but in the lack of monotonous practices.  Major courts rarely are about the prosecutors and defendants involved but the laws they throw into question.  Wikinews has always avoided setting things in stone.  Those of us old enough to understand the war against  bureaucracy understand the evils of such things.  To those of us not yet old enough, do you think your school needs more rules?

 * Userboxes have several pros and cons on which those active in the community are split as to their sum. Amgine, whose gifts to our community are often behind the scenes saw the expense these userboxes cause.  Userboxes have been seen as an unneeded waste by many, including Jimmy Wales himself, of our so hard won physical resources such as our costly servers that we beg people to pay for.  We have very limited real world resources, despite our dreams for which we strive.

 * People are angry as is generally the norm when their labors have been deleted. Amgine has often stood his ground on his principles.  Many unseen times he has gone with wikipolicy even against his own ideals, often venting afterwards on IRC.  Like every other person who as stood up for what he felt was right he has his enemies.  Extremists wanting their own realities to become so entrenched to be undiscernable from NPOV now using Wikinews resources to aid in their goals.

 * Yes, there are those who do not have such intentions. There are those who merely want to personalize their userpage with a few factoids about themselves.  It is useful to know that a user knows both spanish and english.  It is useful to know that an accredited reporter lives near a future event.  Is it useful to know that the user is a member of the invisible pink unicorn cult?  Is it useful to wikinews to host the organization of collaborization of NPOV efforts?

 * Orson Wells said "man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason." We veterans of the POV war all know this to be true.  I ask that the court fully take into account the intentions and actions of those before this court with a calm mind, understanding of the reasons behind the deeds of users. Judge not in anger, judge not in retaliation, judge only in the common good.

--Sfullenwider 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I sure could have used Sfullenwider's comments when Amgine blocked me for 6 months for my "lack of monotonous practices". The only issue brought before this committee was "abuse of administrator privileges". If I or any other non-admin. had done exactly what Amgine did for exactly the same reasons (including Amgine's pointing to Ignore all Rules) we would have been blocked immediately,I think, likely for site vandalism and likely not have had access to Arbcom while blocked. That is one of the reasons why this abuse of administrator privilege is so important,imo; it is not only the actions themselves, but the extra lattitude,I think, that admins. are given when they act out of process. I think it's reasonable to allow them that lattitude but equally resonable to expect at least a similar consequence as what would be dealt a non-admin. for similar actions. Neutralizer 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
1) There is a defined procedure for both speedy deletions and consensus based deletions.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
1) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think Amgine caused significant harm to other users by acting to delete 'userboxes'. I believe the motivation for the deletions were done to restore Wikinews to its previous state, before their implementation, in an effort to draw community focus to an issue that one day Wikinews will need to confront.
 * I also believe that Brian New Zealand brought this complaint because he, along with Amgine, both recognize the issue won't be resolved through Dispute Resolution or by the Arbitration Committee.
 * The question at this point in time, is what to do now? -Edbrown05 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * I have to agree with StrangerInParadise's comments below Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not the case, as both of you are aware. Weeds are pulled in gardens in an effort to produce a more abundant crop - destruction of one plant to favour the goal and and mission of the garden. We delete spam, press releases, and anything else which we deem is harmful to the goal of the project. We did this before we had written policy, and continue to do so where policy is not written because policy comes from doing. We have also deleted userpages directly where warranted. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * Willful destruction cannot be done in good faith, particularly of another's userpage. The issue is out-of-policy destruction, not userboxen themselves. Further, by preemptively destroying userboxes, Amgine attempted to avoid the process one would need to go through in order to effect their prohibition.  This is fundamentally wrong. Finally, I disagree that there has been no significant harm here, restoration to a previous state is not a priori benign— if he brought the whole site down, would this be "bringing us back to a time before websites"?. Amgine brought a divisive conflict to Wikinews in the most inflammatory way possible with full knowledge of what he was doing.  StrangerInParadise 08:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Babel
1) under speedy deletion guidelines, foreign content that is news should be transwikied. Babel helps identify users who might be able to detrmine what language the content is of. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Category and Template namespace
1) Category and Template namespace, like the main namespace, are to be used exclusively for the project's goals and missions.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Define goals. Is policies a wikinews goal, or a means to an end, to create a news source. We use both templates (template:policy nav1) and categories(Category:Wikinews, Category:Proposed policies) for policies. As a means to an end we are also an online comunity. Shouldn't the restrictions and allowances for policies be the same as for the online comunity portian of the site. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * "Wikinews is an online news source and, as a means to that end, also an online community. [from WN:NOT ]"

 * policies are clearly a means to an end, and define what news is for Wikinews. Community is a means to an end, and for userpages" " Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for working on the encyclopedia. " This is the earliest formulation of the policy which led to Wikinews's policy. Throughout the history of policy on the projects userpages have repeatedly been described as exclusively for promoting the goals of the project, and not for any other purpose. -  Amgine | talk en.WN

 * I disagree with this, as per Neutralizer's comments below, I belive that community just, if not more important as the writing of news Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * Amgine said Here that the community of people here is more important than the articles we write. I'd say that pretty well negates his statement above that; "Community is a means to an end". Neutralizer 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC

User pages are subject to policy
1) The content of user pages is governed by the policies of Wikinews. This includes guidelines for civility such as Etiquette.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think theres any disagreement that if a userbox/anything else on a user page offended anyone it would be deleted. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't perceive a history of problems with posts on user pages. If I am correct that a history of problems with posts to user pages is not a problem here at Wikinews, then no actionable issue is being raised. If that is the case, then 'userboxes' should not have been deleted. -Edbrown05 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * This is merely a finding of fact, something which may be relevant when determining remedies. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I believe it sends out a bad message to discuss any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. I don't think Arbcom was created to address or change Wikinews policy while simultaneously addressing an abuse of administrative privilege. In fact, I believe policy changes should go through a broader community consensus process before any Arbcom involvement. It appears to me that the committee's attention has been deflected from the issue of abuse of administrative privilege which is the only issue that was brought to the committee. Neutralizer 22:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators
1) Administrators of Wikinews are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikinews policies.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Amgine deleted templates out of process
1) Amgine deleted templates out of process, without support by Speedy deletion guidelines or Deletion guidelines policies.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * How does it say that things not addressed by policy should be deleted? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * There has been suggestion that SD.A.10 might support these deletions. I do not believe it directly supports the deletion as it refers to articles, but it should be pointed out that templates are not addressed by the policy yet could clearly be in need of speedy deletion. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * This is the only "finding of fact" that relates to abuse of administrative privilege which is the only issue brought before this Arbcom! The others should be deleted as they address policy issues which must be addressed (if at all) firstly by the community at large. Neutralizer 21:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Very few users use userboxes
1) The number of user pages with userboxes is very small compared to the number of users. Decisions regarding userboxes would thus affect a very small percentage of users directly, as the deletion of userboxes affected a very small percentage of user pages.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Very few people on a global scale use or heard of wikinews as well. In the future it will be more. Decesions made here will affect the future users which will be much more great in total, and in number who uses user boxes. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is simply a fact I think. It's not meant to modify policy or restrict future action by the community. It is simply a fact... :D It is, at this time, a fact that very few people use userboxes. Of course, depending on the remedy we choose, this fact may not be relevant. --Chiacomo  (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * The ArbCom needs to look at whether or not userboxes should be allowed and this will affect the future of the site. As Bawolff correctly said the decision made now will affect the site when it grows. Imagine say 100 userboxes per 1,000 users. When we have 100,000 users that translates to 10,000 boxes. I'll keep my opinion on userboxes out of this, that's ArbCom's decision - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe it sends out a bad message to discuss any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. I don't think Arbcom was created to address or change Wikinews policy while simultaneously addressing an abuse of administrative privilege. In fact, I believe policy changes should go through a broader community consensus process before any Arbcom involvement. It appears to me that the committee's attention has been deflected from the issue of abuse of administrative privilege which is the only issue that was brought to the committee. In addition, this is in no way a "finding of fact": This is simply a weak argument for talking away rights. How many of us have ever had to use the right of presumption of innocence in a court of law but it would be ridiculous to call our lack of use thereof a "finding of fact" in an attempt to take away that right. Neutralizer 21:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple act of such aggressive preemption has a chilling effect on subsequent discussion. It seems clear that this was the intention, to nip this whole thing in the bud with as aggresive a position as possible. This is the worst sort of bad faith. To argue that somehow this should result in a policy ruling only ratifies this breech of trust. StrangerInParadise 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy shows a tradition that all use of the site should be for the project
1) User pages should be used related to work on the project, as should all other namespaces.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I disagree with this. Policy has shown a traddition of not caring unless it affects the project negativly, or offends someone. If your contributing to the project, historicly in my opinion, policy has allowed you to do whatever you want unless it violates the two previous things Anything else would be Instruction creep. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The webhost clause on Wikinews has remained unchanged and unchallenged for the history of the policy. On Wikipedia, however: not discussion forum-stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles),  7th edit to the policy,  do not upload files not relevant to encyclopedia articles,  not advertising,  first appearance of "No Original Research" to give a comparison of importance,  creating encyclopedia entries about yourself must be encyclopedic,  pages are not to be used to conduct business,  not a vehicle for personal opinions,  not a free wiki host,  not a place to form consensus of opinion,  restrictions on business-related articles to avoid promotion,  Wikipedia is not a right,  not advertising resource,  not a community or social club,  not a means of insulting/bashing,  not for anything other than writing an encyclopedia,  not a directory,  not a phonebook,  may not host your website or blog,  the primary formulation for Wikinews's policy,  add community as a means to the end of being an encyclopedia,  example of non-encyclopedic content not allowed on userpage (resumé, indicative that proffession would likewise not be allowed),  restore Wikipedia is not an anarchy - purpose to build an encyclopedia section,  restricts freedom where it interferes with creating an encyclopedia,  Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech,  Wikipedia is not a game of nomic,  WP is not a blog and here's why,  do not use talk pages as chatroom/bulletin board,  Wikipedia's talk and project pages are for writing an encyclopedia,  Wikipedia is encyclopedia first community second message board never,  What your userpage is not also-not used as a webhost,  Wikipedia is not myspace,  The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I admire the rhetorical structure of Amgine's argument, but see that,not a place to form consensus of opinion, had a tenure on WP:NOT of just under 25 minutes in March of 2004. Perhaps the rest should be audited, but may be beside the point: neither WN:NOT nor WP:NOT are a justfication for bypassing CDS or RfD, or violating WP/WN:NOT would itself be a Criterion for Speedy Deletion. Moreover, Bawolff's comment seems to have been regarding the application of policy, especially as Wikipedia is not a system of law. Corollary: it's only Wikilawyering when the other guy is doing it.  Finally, I note with amusement Amgine's willingness to disregard Wikinews is not Wikipedia when it suits him.   StrangerInParadise 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * I disagree with this. A user's page should be a place for them to provide some information about themselves. If we are a community then we should have a "feel" for each other so to speak. The user page is the best place to do this - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Amgine said Here that the community of people here is more important than the articles we write. I'd say that precludes "all use of the site should be for the project" as being a finding of fact.Neutralizer 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC

 * in the section "What can I not have on my user page?" Wikipedia:User_page emphasises that
 * "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia."

 * note the use of "Generally" and "substantial". there is no blanket requirement that every byte on the userpage should be obviously and directly related to work on the project. this, i think, supports bawolff's comment about not caring unless there is a problem with the usage. it goes on further to say
 * "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be moderated."

 * Doldrums 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia:User_page is a guideline. w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy. In my history above I highlighted changes to that policy which indicate the tradition of policy that use of the site must be for the project. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * i don't think there is much(if any) of a policy/guideline distinction between the two. note that the What your userpage is not section in w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not(the "policy") simply points to Wikipedia:User_page(the "guideline"). Doldrums 09:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Uhm, "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well." I humbly submit that:
 * User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
 * is extremely more restrictive than the guideline . -  Amgine | talk en.WN 09:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: "The focus of User pages ..." in above. Doldrums 13:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets remember that wikinews and wikipedia don't have the same policies. Although WN:NOT says we're not a webhost, etc, It also says we are an online comunity because we need to be in order to create news. Therefor I would interpet that as as long as the user is activly contributing to wikinews, creating news, and it doesn't hurt it, it's okay. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I may or may not agree with that, that does not change that the history of Wikinews's policy is also that of Wikipedia's policy, and that policy shows a tradition that use of the site must be for the project. That is the only thing this finding of fact is about. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a reasonable finding of fact. If the page doesn't in some way serve the purpose and mission of Wikinews, what is it doing here? --Chiacomo (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * note that without the above "tolerant" guidelines for interpreting what serves wikinews and what doesn't, user pages will have to be drastically changed. for instance, does a user page which says "hi, my name is jim, i live in patusan, i love my pet cat "Bubblegum" and my aunt mildred's cookies" serve wikinews purpose? if not, do we want to forbid users putting up stuff like this on their pages and ensuring that they don't?
 * looking at user pages on wikinews today, i don't see any distinction between them and thier wikipedia counterparts in terms of "serving the project". so i think the policy under forcetoday is the "tolerant" one, and that's the way it should be. perhaps the text of this finding should be qualified (eg., "generally" and "substantial", as in wikipedia) as well. Doldrums 09:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with pages being restricted to those which are helpful, but langauge templates are helpful. Nyarlathotep 09:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Amgine deleted templates out of process but in good faith
1) Amgine deleted templates out of process, without support by Speedy deletion guidelines or Deletion guidelines policies, but acted in good faith as he believed this action was in the best interest of the community.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I refined the first FoF a bit as another option. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I always thought that in good faith meant I didn't realize what I did was wrong, but I meant it in the project's best intreast. I Don't understand how Amgine could have possibly not known that this wasn't allowed. There was nothing stoping him/her from going to WN:DR and doing it the normal way. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think perhaps Amgine knew he was doing the wrong thing but had a good faith reason for doing so... We know he knew he was doing the wrong thing because he filed an RfAr against himself. We can only guess that he thought it was the right thing to do because he did it... In my mind, this is good faith. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * This isn't a refinement, its providing an excuse. An excuse which could be used for any behavior whatsoever. He could delete every article on the front page and then say it was done in "good faith" because he felt the articles were not up to standard. There's no excuse for arrogantly trampling over the collaborative process in this situation; there was no emergency that required such a disregard for the process in place. I find the insertion of this "in good faith" choice to be damaging to the integrity of this process. Neutralizer 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * doesn't a finding of good faith require amgine to provide some rationale for his action? to my knowledge, there's been no explanation offered about why amgine chose to delete out-of-process rather than going thro' DR. Doldrums 07:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * His actions are prima facia bad faith. StrangerInParadise 12:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Amgine is placed on "Admin Probation"
1) Amgine is placed on non-technical "Admin probation". He will not use his administrative powers for a period of 1 month for anything but the most obvious vandalism prevention, and only when there is no other administrator available to perform the tasks.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would support this if it was for deletions only. If something is needed speedy, anything but the most obvious vandalism s/he would have to use . Perhaps also a period of time after where s/he'd get in more trouble if s/he did anything bad. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We could also impose a non-technical administrative ban... he can't use his admin powers at all for 1 month (or some other period of time). By non-technical I mean that they aren't removed -- just that he doesn't use them. We would define a reaction (a block of some length) in the enforcement section if he violated the ban. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin Probation is kind of silly, we elected admins because we can trust them, setting non-technical limits on what they can do is useless and pointless. --Cspurrier 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is unnecessary. Being bold and making changes is part of our modus operandi.  The issue really brought in front of us is not so much Amgine's deletions being a problem, but his stance that userboxes don't belong. I don't support probation. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * This is not likely to have any effect at all,imo. For the first month after Amgine left the project all he did was deal with vandalism and when he returned to full involvement his behavior was the same as before (if you check the DR history). It should be noted that Amgine has been into DR more than any other user and that he has shown no willingness to respect nor be affected at all by constructive suggestions of others; not even those by mediators like Ilya; e.g.last 2 paragraphs. Neutralizer 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Amgine is blocked for 2 weeks
1) Amgine is blocked from editing Wikinews for 14 days.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * What will this acomplish, Amgine goes away for about two weeks, and comes back. none of the issues have been dealt with. If a block is to be used, a long block would not acomplish anything more then a short block IMHO. (A short block might give time for reflection however). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should get off without some sort of block... 14 days should be least amount of time, in my opinion, if we're going to block him. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocking him does not help Wikinews at all, if we really want to “punish” him for the deletion, banning him from deleting any non-vandalism pages, does slightly more good.--Cspurrier 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Much like suspending admin rights, I do not support this. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this suggestion along with the suggestion that Amgine is subject to Administrator confirmation. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * Actually, I don't support this. I support the removal of admin powers, and the requirement to stand for reconfirmation.  Absent an abuse of simple editorial powers, I would not endorse such a ban. I subscribe to the idea that simply editing is therapeutic, and in this case rehabilitative. StrangerInParadise 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If Amgine has the trust of the community he will be confirmed as an admin.; and why would anyone propose that someone remain an admin. who does not have that level of trust? I'm opposed to this option and I support the requirement to stand for reconfirmation. Neutralizer 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not support this option either. I do not think that Amgine's intentions were to disrupt the site - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Amgine is subject to Administrator confirmation
1) Amgine shall be immediately subject to re-confirmation as an administrator by the community. This RfA shall procede as normal with a 7 day duration.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think this is a good idea, though it should be scheduled to occur  sometime after things have settled down. --Cspurrier 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this should be the bare minumin. We determined above that Amgine did a bad thing. Administrators are elected on the general principal that they don't do bad things. Regardless of the opinion of arbcom, We are responsible to the comunity, and its up to them if they think amgine should still keep his/her admin powers. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators are elected to do cleanup and take care of things that folks with non-admin access can't do; there's no clear definition of "bad things" when it comes to enforcing what Amgine sees as policy. I don't agree with reconfirmation for now. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that s/he'd done a bad thing because we are in the process of punishing him/her. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this suggestion along with the suggestion that Amgine is blocked for 2 weeks. However he should not be able to apply untill the block is over . Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I support this suggestion. Neutralizer 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it not make sense to subject him to an RfDA rather than de-admining, re-confirming and possibly admining again? - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This remedy would not immediately de-admin Amgine.. much like Meta's confirmation process for existing administrators. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with RfDa is that you can never get a large enough consensus for removal; as with one of the last RfDas the vote was 9-7 for removal. With RFA the shoe is on the other foot and that same split would not have put the person into an adminship; one needs a much,much higher level of community trust to get adminship(RFA) than to retain it(RFDA). Neutralizer 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Chiacomo, I thought it would be a de-admin, re-admin situation, I will have to look into Meta's confirmation system. I see your point too Neutralizer, but an RfDA would be the appropriate mechanism for dealing with an administrator who has supposedly lost the community's confidence - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Except the RfDa system is a conundrum. Admins are supposed to have the trust of the community as a whole; but with RfDa an admin. can remain an admin. with even less than a 50% level of community trust. Perhaps the RfDa process should change but we could never get a consensus for change which is, (I recollect) one of the very reasons we decided to create an Arbcom. Neutralizer 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point! - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Amgine is subject to Administrator confirmation after 14 days
1) Amgine shall be subject to re-confirmation as an administrator by the community. This RfA shall begin 14 after the close of this arbitration and procede as normal with a 7 day duration.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I added this remedy following Craig's suggestion that a "cooling off" period be observed. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 2 weeks is a bit much, perhaps ~5 days. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. I believe that remedies on this case should be restricted to policies regarding userboxes, not users. If Amgine violates policy that's decided upon by Wikinews, then there's reason to take action. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here to IlyaHaykinson's comment on scope and existing rules: there are existing rules regarding the deletion of templates and interference with userpages, which Amgine broke, there are no rules prohibiting Userboxes and this forum is not the place to formulate them. (If I was supposed to reply to Ilya from the Comment by others section, accept my apologies and feel free to put me back in my place).StrangerInParadise 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to correct you. The deletion guidelines do not mention deletion of templates at all. Wikinews does not have a written policy regarding interfering with user pages; as far as I'm aware neither does Wikipedia. It is generally consideered in poor taste to edit another's user page, which should be considered policy on Wikinews. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to correct you. Your own use of "Ignore all Rules"here as a justification for your behavior shows you know you did exactly that (ignore the rules) which means there must have been rules which you chose to ignore. Neutralizer 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out templates have been historicly treated as normal pages, as well as that problamatic userpages are supposed to go through DR. (as well as category sheemes too)Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * Only with immediate de-adminship. StrangerInParadise 12:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox creations are restricted until policy is developed
1) The creation of user boxes using the Template or Category namespaces is restricted until such time as the community develops appropriate policy for their use.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I agree with neutralizer. We are a dispute resolution system, not a policy maker. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why I added "until such time as the community develops appropriate policy for their use." I think policy is currently developing. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no policy, there should be no restriction. Brian New Zealand, or any user, should be free to roll-back any deletions made to userboxes until a policy is formed. -Edbrown05 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the notion that creation of userboxes should be restricted until their use is covered by a policy. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this, provided that the second that a userbox policy is made, this expires Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I believe it sends out a bad message to address any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. In fact, I believe policy changes should be addressed and go through a broader community consensus process before any possible Arbcom involvement. Neutralizer 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. StrangerInParadise 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes using the Category and Template namespaces are restricted to localization and language identification
1) Userboxes using categories shall be restricted to provide only location and language information. All other information can be included in a userbox format but can not use the Template or Category namespaces.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Neutralizer. However I'd like to comment, that this could also cut off a valuable way to find intreasted wikinewsies on a subject. In Wikinews because of time contsraints, getting intreasted contributors at the article is going to be more important then letting them find the article on their own. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other ways to find users interested in anything without using the Category and Template namespaces... Of course, there doesn't appear to be widespread use userboxes to aide in finding people interested in news topics. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording of the heading to better match the text of the remedy. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I do not like this, agree in part with Bawolff Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I believe it sends out a bad message to address any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. In fact, I believe policy changes should be addressed and go through a broader community consensus process before any possible Arbcom involvement. Neutralizer 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. StrangerInParadise 12:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes using the Category and Template namespaces are prohibited
1) The creation of userboxes using the Category or Template namespaces is prohibited.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This would not prohibit other groupings of editors by "What links here", etc. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Still agreeing with Neutralizer. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the heading to better correspond to the text of the remedy. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a little off topic, but how about another namespace called something like misic: for things like userboxes, or perhaps Australian discussion and more online comunity stuff etc, so it doesn't flow over into template. Categories combined with DPL and userboxes could be quite useful in my opinion though. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I do not like this Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * I believe it sends out a bad message to address any policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges relating to the policy in question. In fact, I believe policy changes should be addressed and go through a broader community consensus process before any possible Arbcom involvement. Neutralizer 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal as it limits userboxes encroaching on other regions of the site. May I suggest that this remedy be temporary until such time as the community develops a Userbox policy, once said policy is created this would then be null and void - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is not the forum for this decision. Administrative malfesance is a far graver threat than userboxes will ever be. There is no risk in allowing the status quo, and many in an interim ruling. StrangerInParadise 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on what Arbcom sees the problem as being, if it sees that userboxes were a precursor to the administrator abuses then something should be done to stop it from happening in the future :) - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox whitelist
1) We create (if approved by the community) a white list of acceptable userboxes. This white list would start with localization and language identification userboxes and could later with community support have other userbox types added as well

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Hmm, thats not actually a bad idea, shouldn't be decided in arbcom though. But outside of here i'd support this. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be decided by arbcom, I just think this should be put forward as the official arbcom suggestion on the issue. --Cspurrier 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, policy not up to arbcom, but seems very sane. I would personally instead whitelist types of userboxes. (''note: changed text of remedy to reference userboxes, not infoboxes) -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * Yes, the best way to use userbox without fear of editorial war or NPOV problem. Jacques Divol 09:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a hideous idea. Do you want to have a vote on every new userbox? This form of unacceptable until proven acceptable is very un-wiki, and I can only think that the Arbitrators have not considered the ramifications! StrangerInParadise 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, this may have merit. The very same logic used in support of userbox whitelists could apply to news topic whitelists, We create (if approved by the community) a white list of acceptable news topics. This white list would start with the weather (just the weather, mind, none of those POV global warming shenanigans!) and what politicians have said recently (no editorializing by making any contrast with facts!) and could later with community support have other news topics added as well (what new animals have been recently added to the zoo seems to be popular on local TV news, though pandas are always potentially a political minefield), this way we could write stories without fear of editorial war or NPOV problems. I see the appeal now, sorry to have missed it before! StrangerInParadise 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 *  Why  does Wikinews need userboxes? -Edbrown05 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because someone wants them. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no "need" for userboxes on Wikinews. They can serve a purpose which works toward Wikinews's goals and mission - identifying users who may serve as translators - and can do so without using non-user namespace. I'm currently working with Brian New Zealand for technical solutions for doing this. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, whats this technical solution? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite simple. Userboxes would not be allowed as templates, but would be listed for subst: to a user's page. For a babel box, say Spanish-1, it would link to Wikinews/Spanish-1, where users may choose to list themselves. But even if they don't list themselves, a link to the Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikinews:Wikinews/Spanish-1 is available there which will locate everyone who has subst: the babel box to their page. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What a worthless solution. i'm fine with subst restrictions for POV templates, like what wikipedia is doing.  But people need to be able to reverse look up users based upon langauge.  Your solution specifically prevents this.  Have you actually read any of the debate at wikipedia?  Nyarlathotep 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read extensively about the debates at en.Wikipedia. Far more than 5 000 separate, individual edits regarding this issue. I would guess rather more extensively than you have. Can you explain, with specificity, why you consider this suggested solution "worthless"? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 07:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Its quite simple. substitution & user category bans are the solutions wikipedia is using for POV userboxes which they specifically want to prevent users from using to form alliances.  transclusion & categorization are explicity for allowing users to find users with a skill.  substitution is for a box your not allowed to make a category for.  transclusion is for a box your encouraged to make a category for.  Nyarlathotep 07:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This tells me what Wikipedia is doing. In what way is the above solution "worthless"? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, there is absolutely no reasion to avoid transclusion at all if your just going to specifically encourage people to use another user sorting mechanism, such as categories or What links here to another page. The only reason I've ever seen advanced for avoiding transclusion is specifically to prevent the use of What links here.  Nyarlathotep 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are avoiding my question. Could you please tell me why the proposed solution is "worthless"? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it runs around in circles to achieve absolutely nothing. Using subst has no value aside from supressing What links here.   Nyarlathotep 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not, in fact, true. It achieves the same effect as categories (using Special:Whatlinkshere), and using subst: avoids the use of the Template: namespace, as well as reducing the server cost of the user's page, thus preserving the separation of userpages and project pages. Do you have any other arguments as to why this solution is "worthless"? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a small server cost is irrelevant, the foundation will tell us if its relevant. Seperation of userspace & project pages could potentially have some value, but its just as likely to have the opposite effect, i.e. it may teach people how to use wikinews like myspace before they are properly integrated into the community.  Anyway, a babel template itself is a project page in exactly the same sense as your proposed Wikinews: page.  Nyarlathotep 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is unnecessary to use the template namespace, or categories, and doing so does cause dissention, and there is no effectual difference between the two models, then I believe that A) there is value in doing so, B) there is no justification for not doing so. Further, there is policy and tradition which suggests the community would prefer doing so.

 * Having now disputed your arguments and your statement that this idea is "worthless", I wish to reverse the argument you pressed me to reply to. Using userboxes is harmful; it causes disputes among users and admins. It has now caused wheel wars on both Wikipedia and Wikinews. It has caused admins on both sides of the dispute, you and I, to violate Wikinews process. There is a perfectly viable solution proposed which has exactly the same effect. On what basis do you justify not collaborating on implementing this idea in policy? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Its pure unadulterated instruction creep. Skill & langauge identification should be identical on all foundation wikis for obvious reasons.  And it destroys any hope we have to really control POV userboxes by granting the helpful userboxes a special status.  But, most importantly, it just makes it harder for people to identify their skills & langauges.  Nyarlathotep 08:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Wikipedia:Catholic_Alliance_of_wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive79#StrangerInParadise_spambot_spamming_userpages say it is not instruction creep, but a very viable response to existing problems. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Helpful userboxes under the proposal above would be granted a special status: acceptance. So I ask my question a second time: on what basis do you justify not working collaboratively to implement this idea in policy? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Nothing to do with langauges or useful skills! And I've never objected to the subst: for (or banning of) POV userboxes!  Your proposal is still massive instruction creep, while simply applying subst: to a POV userbox is reasonable.  If you want a good policy proposal, try this one:

If a user template expresses a POV, but does not violate userpage policy, it should be deleted, but the deleting admin should either (a) first subst: all userpage occurrences, or else (b) pospone the deletion for one week & leave a note of the impending deletion on WN:DR. A user template violating userpage content policy should be immediately deleted. WN:DR deletions or undeletions is the proper venue for debate about user templates.
 * Nice, simple, compatible with wikipedia, etc. Nyarlathotep 09:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikinews itself is not compatible with Wikipedia. The above solution is instruction creep in that it specifically allows userboxes, which under current policy are not allowed. It is not unreasonable to require subst: for userboxes; it is in 4 of 6 current Wikipedia policy proposals regarding userboxes. A far simpler userbox policy, and one which is in line with current policy is: no userboxes. Period. End of sentence. Userpages are exclusively to be used to directly promote goal of Wikinews, the production of timely and verifiable news articles. This is currently the policy on Wikipedia as well. (see WP:NOT if you don't believe me.) Wikipedia:Userpage is a guideline, and not a policy of Wikipedia. Read it if you don't believe me. Especially the nice big box at the top. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Ain't nothing wrong with restricting user space to promotion of project goals, as i've said a dozen times already. But maintaining a high degree of compatiblity with wikipedia is valuable, as this is where our new users come from.  Maintaining a simple system for expressing skills and langauges is also valuble.  If you don't like subst of POV userboxes, fine, one can talk about speedy deletion of those alone with the ones violating content policy.  Talk about that with other people, I don't care one way or the other.  But none of this has anything to do with langauge or skill boxes.  A topic which you continually avoid talking about, and the only one I care about.  Nyarlathotep 09:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I have been talking about language boxes. Ones which are subst: to user pages, and do not use template or category pages. All my examples have been language boxes. I have requested that you collaborate on a policy to allow language boxes. I happen to call them, accurately, userboxes. I do not support skill boxes for the simple reason they are not particularly relevant to news, but also because they seem to me to be susceptible to abuse; as they have been on other WMF projects. (i.e. "This user practices Divorce law at [http:example.com Mysite.com]] and can take your case." or Edbrown05's example of "This user is a Painter and can paint your house for less than $2500") If you would like to continue to talk about language boxes, please continue to reply. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "This user practices Divorce law at [http:example.com Mysite.com]]" should not be okay, but if it was "This user knows Divorce law" that should be allowed. Then when, you are doing an article on e,g. "Person X devorces famous person B, you could ask the user for help understanding about, how the devorce works, - that is related to weikinews Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I really need to go to bed now, but I'll point out that the SIP meetpupet problem has nothing to do with langauge boxes. You've got one case of a user copying the formatting of a langauge box to make an unimportant joke.  I'm sorry, but that is just nothing.  Any reasonable objection you've made has only been to POV userboxes, which I don't care about.  Find an argument which applies to langauge boxes.  Nyarlathotep 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SIP meetpupet problem?! StrangerInParadise 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe they are talking about this. Meatpuppeteering, at its best. irid:t 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, my legions of rabid zombie UN Wikipdian voters with which I swamped the helpless consensus of UPP. I keep missing new allusions to it, I've been too busy spamming the pages of all the people who tend to agree with me here, so as to bring them under my evil spell. Read this. StrangerInParadise 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have provided no reason they should not be included as per the outline above. The outline above meets current policy without need for change. I believe the onus is on you to justify why policy should be modified. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | talk en.WN 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

 * I believe it sends out a bad message to discuss policy changes while simultaneously dealing with an alleged abuse of administrative privileges. I don't think Arbcom was created to debate Wikinews policy while simultaneously addressing an abuse of administrative privilege. In fact, I believe policy changes should go through a broader community consensus process before ever being put before Arbcom. It appears to me that the committee's attention has been largely deflected away from the issue of abuse of administrative privilege which is the only issue that was brought to the committee to deal with. In addition, I can not reconcile Amgine's "Community is a means to an end" and "all use of the site should be for the project" position in this arbitration with his previously stated position that "Wikinews is not about articles, but about developing and maintaining an online community; the articles are secondary." Therefore I must conclude his act of unilaterally deleting user boxes was simply an unacceptable abuse of administrative privilege. It is ridiculous,imo, that the discussion thus far is mostly about userbox policy rather than the abuse of administrative privilege. Neutralizer 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you look deeply you will see that the core of the dispute is whether or not we allow userboxes on the site. There is the issue of alleged administrative misconduct that needs to be looked at, but the cause needs to be addressed else the same dispute could happen again. In this case due to there being no userbox policy, ArbCom should be able to temporarily create policy or guidelines until such time as the community decides for itself - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I must counter-disagree. =) The only matter to be decided here is whether to tolerate rogue admin action, else the same sort of action will happen the next time some willing martyr of an admin wants the arbcom to make policy directly, which they are not supposed to do. Userboxes will sort themselves out under separate cover. StrangerInParadise 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Userboxes are part of Wikinews
Userboxes first appeared on Wikinews on the June 6, 2005. Since then there has been no complaints on Wikinews about them until this message appeared, after this, everything went downhill.

Amgine disrupted the site by deleting them
  Amgine, repeatedly violated the WN:DG, and the WN:SD. Below, are examples of this behaviour have been gathered: Amgine's deletions Deletions of templates:

Wikinews is not Wikipedia

 * Amgine stated: “Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Our policies, and community needs, are different”
 * But also said: “…watching the developments on WP, and measured the benefits versus the drawbacks of userboxes…. The user use of category and template namespaces… userboxes should not be on Wikinews”

One this does not if in with the "Wikinews is not Wikipedia", and I agree Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Wikinews is a different community, different policy. Different needs, different proposes. How can what happens on wikipedia be what is necessarily the best for Wikinews?

Deletion was out of process
The entire deletion of the Userboxes/babel templates should have gone through WN:DR. Amgine is an admin, and a respected editor, but in this case he used his privileges in a mass deletion campaign - breaking links on user's pages - and set a bad example for other users and administrators.

Userboxes are beneficial
Babel templates are helpful. They can show a user's language skills and, if you need help on a Spanish article, you can track down who speaks it to ask for help. The same applies with Userboxes. If you were writing about US politics, you can get help from someone who knows about how the US system works, etc. Therefor how can userboxes make Userpages be offensive, if it's imforming you infomation.

Amgine was disruptive
Amgine's actions violated the sense of community and collaboration that is Wikinews.

Re: "Wikinews is not a free wiki host or webspace provider" (WN:NOT), the policy also states "Wikinews is not a theater of war." Mass deletions don't reflect that Amgine was behaving civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.

Evidence presented by Amgine
Due to the nature of an Arbitration Committee, decisions are largely based on accepted practice, written policy, and previous decisions in similar cases. The Wikinews ArbCom has not had previous cases, so it is difficult to find evidence showing specific practice on Wikinews. This case is also about learning from the example, and mistakes, of our sister project en.Wikipedia. I plan to use some examples from Wikipedia where policy between the two projects are similar, and where there are particularly clear examples, as well as evidence from Wikinews.

Userboxes are disruptive
Userboxes developed from the original Babel templates from en.Wikipedia. The experiences of en.Wikipedia are instructive due to their longer, and more severe, exposure to userboxes.

Current wheel wars
Admins on en.Wikipedia are currently disputing enforcement of policy regarding userboxes originally proposed by sannse and made policy by Jimbo Wales.

 * RfAr
 * Evidence
 * Administrator's Alert regarding wheel war between admins Guanaco and MarkSweep
 * Administrator's Alert regarding wheel war between admins Babajobu and MarkSweep.
 * Administrator's Alert regarding blocking of admin Babajobu for disruption re: userbox categories.
 * Administrator's Alert] regarding one user's spam attack, using a userbox category, over one userbox edited by MarkSweep during this wheel war.
 * History of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion showing the edit warring within an established policy.

5 users de-admined

 * Signpost article regarding de-admins over the paedophilia userbox wheel war.

Disputes, polls, and proposals
The extension to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion is only one of many incidents of instruction creep related to userboxes on en.Wikipedia.

 * Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates - undeletion of userbox debates
 * Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes - proposed policy
 * Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll - fail poll attempting to gain consensus on proposed policy
 * Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals - earlier proposed policy, failed to gain consensus
 * Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes - proposed policy
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes - a project organization to lobby for policy/promote the use of userboxes
 * Wikipedia:Userboxes - instructions on how to create, use userboxes, official lists of userbox templates.
 * Admin alert regarding personal attacks of "racism" regarding the deletion/dispute of a userbox.

Requests for comment, arbitration, current admin notification incidents

 * RFC Kelly Martin - original
 * Admin alert - User:Alibabs
 * Admin alert - Userbox deletions
 * Request for Arbitration Tony Sidaway, still open.
 * Request for Arbitration Pedophilia userbox wheel war, closed

Userboxes on Wikinews
At the request of ArbCom Chiacomo, I checked the use of the templates I deleted, examining the date of initial creation and the userpages which connect to these templates.

The majority of user boxes were initiated, or rewritten, on 23 February 2006 (note: this was technically a violation of GFDL, copying from en.wikipedia or meta.) Likewise, a majority of user categories were created, all by User:ClaesWallin.

There are currently 82 user pages (including talk pages) linked to userboxes. This number is probably reduced from 4 days ago, when the userboxes were initially deleted. This does not reflect the actual number of user pages on which the templates appear as most of the pages which have any userboxes have more than one. One quarter of these are the native english speaker userbox.

Users may not use Wikinews as a webhost
This element of Wikinews policy has been unchanged since its first draft:

 * Wikinews is not a free wiki host or webspace provider. You may not host your own website or blog at Wikinews. If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on anything other than writing journalistic news articles, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites (such as SeedWiki or Riters.com) that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can even install wiki software on your server.

 * First draft of the WN:NOT policy
 * Part of Wikipedia since 15 June 2002.

Use of categories and templates should be for the project
From the first formulations of Wikipedia policy to the latest discussions it has been clear that all pages, including user pages, are intended to be relevant to the project. The earliest mention of userpages in policy specifically state they are to be used for working on the encyclopedia.

Use of template and category namespaces for personal use does not work toward the goals of Wikinews. Wikinews Mission statemen

The Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia used categories contained in userboxes to attempt to bias the content of Wikipedia through vote stacking. Likewise, StrangerInParadise engaged in the same behaviour, which also led to this memorable quote from David Gerard:

 * Grossly non-encyclopedic categories in userboxes have been considered a bad thing since they first showed up. (ibid)

User pages must not be offensive
Wikinews does not have a written userpage policy. Practice has been to request a user remove offensive material, and in rare cases for an admin to remove the offensive material. (Looking for cases, I remember one late spring 2005 plus the discussion with User:Neutralizer by Eloquence, et al.)

Other policies are relevant:

 * Etiquette
 * Be polite.
 * Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
 * Be civil.
 * Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
 * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
 * Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike)
 * Create and continue a friendly environment

 * Username
 * Don't create user names that are offensive
 * Out of courtesy to other users, please do not create usernames that may be misleading or confusing.

Ignore all the rules
WP:IAR is a concept, if not a policy. To state it simply for Wikinews:

 * If the rules prevent you from working on Wikinews, ignore them and go about your business. Remember the purpose of Wikinews is to report news; use common sense and don't be a dick.

This concept has a long tradition in the wiki communities, predating Wikipedia. It is closely related to the mantra "Be bold!". In both of these guidelines is the implicit instruction to improve the project no matter whether what you do is "outside of process". If it works toward the goals and missions of the project, it supercedes the policies and traditions of the site which have developed. Product is more valued than process.

First assertion
Amgine has a long established pattern of arrogant abuse of administrative privilege ,site disruption and rudeness as shown here;

 * Amgine abuses administrative authority consistently and has done so for at least 9 months. Here are a few examples of administrative abuse.

 * Dan100's list of Amgine's "bullying and poor behaviour"
 *

Second assertion
He will not stop abusing administrative privilege; as this blatant out of process unilateral deletion of his yesterday shows; Amgine went "out of process" and unilaterally deleted an article (which he had tagged days earlier) without submitting the article through our Deletion Request process. The article clearly is not elligible for speedy delete and had been in develpment for days before the unilateral out of process deletion. The fact Amgine placed the article in a user's space is particularly worrisome as other editors had been participating in editing and discussion.

 * 'Summary' of the 2 assertions; I think the evidence shows Amgine is a wiki-troll; just playing with the site to manufacture his own rules and hand out 6 month blocks etc. at his whim and when it comes to his own behavior, to ignore all rules equally at his whim. He relies upon the good nature and gentleness of most contributors (as well as turnover) to co-dependentize his behaviour. Few of the Arbcoms here ever knew DV or Simeon or the other great wikinewsies Amgine pushed out; Just read the DR histories concerning Amgine's behavior over the past year. Now that's in evidence too. I suggest that Arbcom read it before making a final decision. Neutralizer 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I remember corectly, DV leaving had nothing to do with Amgine's behavoir, and more to do with the limits of NPOV. Simeon left before I came. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If you go back through DV's history you'll see it all; he was just too much of a nice guy to leave a critical comment when he left. He'll tell you himself if you get in touch with him, I'm pretty sure. He could stand no more of Amgine's hypocrisy. Simeon was even a sadder example of pure harrassment, wikistalking and even 3RR trap setting (Dan100 referred to that). Its all in the histories of DV and Simeon.

 * I'd suggest the committee even interview Simeon if you really want to do an exceptionally thorough job. Neutralizer 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry; I left out Mateo"I can not contribute to a project where I am not allowed to edit in peace."; there's been so many border-line blocks and rule quoting by someone who enlists "ignore all rules" in his own defense. Mateo's final edit on wikinews is kindof ironic given this Arbcom; ""Email me when the vast majority of good administrators get a tighter hold on this place." User:Neutralizer|Neutralizer]] 23:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An intreasting kinda unrelated comment I saw . Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * by Edbrown05 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC):
 * In answer to the notion that userboxes inform and are therefore not offensive, I would note that there are instances where information is offensive. For instance, on an advertising-free website such as this, I would be put off to click on a contributor's user page to find it full of advertising banners (where an "Advertising banner" is an evolved userbox). For example, "Edbrown05 speaks no Spanish, but will paint your Spanish-speaking home" in a flashing font on the banner trailing an airplane as it crosses your browser window.

 * It could be argued that since it is my user page, I can post what I want. But as Bawolff noted, where do you draw the line?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine

= Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine = Case Opened on 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

User:Amgine, an administrator, has deleted dozens of user box templates, including the Babel template systems, from Wikinews without appropriate process on Deletion requests, and in violation of speedy deletion guidelines. This constitutes an abuse of administrator privileges.

Statement by Brian New Zealand
First a user box is just fancy wiki coding, there really is no such thing as a 'userbox' Why is someones's opinion in a box any worse that someone's opinion as raw text?

By telling users they cannot declare themselves an Supporter of the NZ Army or This user wants to keep the queen as head of state, or even this user speeks english, and knows some chinese. I belive that this does not reinforce NPOV. How are you to know what a users POV is if you are telling them “You cant show your POV”

I belive that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs, in the form of userboxes should be okay.

I ask the arbcom to block the user who went and deleted the Userboxes/Babel  without taken it thought Deletion request first. For a time that they feel fit, as punishment.

Would “This user is an admin on wikinews” be deleted? also realize there are strong concerns here that may need to be remedied (start with free speech).

Statement by Amgine
User boxes are a wonderful way to express yourself. There are over 7500 user boxes on en.Wikipedia, with hundreds more being developed. Most user boxes involve categories, often custom graphics. Their primary purpose is prove the individuality of each user.

In no way do the boxes, or their use of resources, materially benefit the project.

Wikinews, and Wikipedia, have policies against users cyber squatting and using their user space as a website. The use of these spaces by users to make personal statements about themselves is merely inappropriate, but the use of categories, templates, and other namespaces should not be tolerated.

The amount of acrimony, argument, policy making (and instruction creep) which has ensued is ample example they are harmful to the community. Their use has caused wheel wars, multiple requests for comment, at least a half-dozen policy extensions or creations, and two appeals from Jimmy Wales to stop their use; it is expected a board decision regarding them will be forthcoming shortly. ,, ,

For this reason, seeing an incipient development on a user's, I asked the user to remove a custom Babel template which might be considered offensive. The user pointed out another user who had userbox-like elements on the user page. After informing the other user their userbox also must be removed, I deleted all babel templates and other userboxes from the template namespace. In this I may have followed the guidelines of ignore all rules.

For the edification of the arbcom members, here are a few examples of users pages which have userboxes: User:Dragon695 User:Snickerdo User:Magicalsaumy. Please note the number of categories these users are listed in; imagine 1 000 000 users now, and growing at more than 20% per quarter compounded.

Here are "official" lists of user templates:

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Automotive Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal Wikipedia:Userboxes/Emoticons Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media Wikipedia:Userboxes/Mathematics Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours Wikipedia:Userboxes/Books Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional_Politics Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political_Parties Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education Wikipedia:Userboxes/Time Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages Wikipedia:Babel

Almost all these userboxes have been developed within the past 3 months. An estimate I have is this collection represents about half of the template namespace userboxes; an equal number have been created as custom template creations within user pages, and thousands more have been deleted in several purges.

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting request

 * Accept Request Other dispute resolution seems pointless as Amgine idicates it's fruitless. Important issue. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept request for arbitration --Cspurrier 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * accept - argument on Brian New Zealand side not well formed. My bad, valid issue. -Edbrown05 04:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * accept, all possible steps to resolve have not been taken (as far as I can tell, please provide linky if have) I reread the request. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. If policy is to be formed, it's better to form it early-on. This is also a good case to test the ArbCom procedure. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Indeed an important issue. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Deletion
1) There is a defined procedure for both speedy deletions and consensus based deletions.

 * Passed 4/0/0/2

Assume good faith
1) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

 * Passed 4/0/0/2

Administrators
1) Administrators of Wikinews are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikinews policies.

 * Passed 4/0/0/2

User pages are subject to policy
1) The content of user pages is governed by the policies of Wikinews. This includes guidelines for civility such as Etiquette.

 * Passed 4/0/0/2

Amgine deleted templates out of process
1) Amgine deleted templates out of process, without support by Speedy deletion guidelines or Deletion guidelines policies.

 * Passed 5/0/1/0

Userbox whitelist
1) A white list of acceptable userboxes, as approved by the community, shall be created. This white list would start with localization and language identification userboxes and could later, with community support, have other userbox types added as well. 2) A definition of white list is found here

 * Passed 5/0/0/1

Implementation of remedies:
The community will develop a whitelist of approved userboxes with the initial priority being given to localization and language identification. Only userboxes approved by the community in the whitelisting process will be permitted. Other userboxes, as approved by the community, will be allowed. Any userbox policy adopted by the community would supercede this remedy.


text:
Wikinews talk:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine

Recuse responsibility
I will be taking a wiki-break so it will be up to others to pursue this if they feel it is reasonable. I feel that in keeping with a reasonable level of unbiased jurisprudence that CSpurrier and Chiacomo should recuse themselves from this particular arbitration because;

CSpurrier previously felt Amgine was not even subject to an Rfda and

Chiacomo has admitted that he is a close friend of Amgine and even acknowledged that fact before accepting the role of mediator on one of Amgine's mediations (I believe with Cartmanau). This acknowledgement by Chiacomo at that time shows he himself thought there may be at least seen to be an inappropriate level of bias. Neutralizer 04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be taking an interest in this matter. You are correct that Chiacomo and Amgine are friends, yes, Chiacomo was the mediator in the dispute resolution between Amgine and I and clearly stated this beforehand. I feel that if there is a problem with relationships between those on the committee and those involved that this is something for those participating in the process to state - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For accuracy's sake here is Chiacomo'sacknowledgement If it was important enough to state then, perhaps it doesn't hurt to also state now; at least it would seem to me. Likewise, any member of the community has the right and obligation to bring forward this type of concern, I think, at least on the talk page. One or more of the directly involved parties may not know about the advisement Cartman02au and I refered to and why should they not? This is an open and transparent process which must be seen to be unbiased as well as actually being unbiased,at least in my opinion. Neutralizer 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't explain myself correctly, it is fair to comment on such relationships but if there is a problem with them and the arbitor will not recuse themselves then perhaps it should be for one of the parties to the arbitration to request that that arbitor be recused. If BNZ and Amgine have no problem with it, then neither should we. We are essentially outside observers - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to recuse myself. I consider BNZ (along with most of the active editors on Wikinews) to be friends. I have not been directly involved in this userbox debacle -- were I involved, I would of course recuse myself. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Chiacomo, under what authority do you claim to have sole and personal authority over whether or not you are recused? Certainly that is a quite abnormal claim;  Neutralizer 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, this is ArbCom. As Chiacomo has no undeclared issues,
 * the first decision of whether to recuse is his
 * in principle, the other members can vote to ask him to recuse (effectively raising a new arbcom matter on the recusal)
 * a general vote could be taken as to whether he should recuse (a non-binding resolution of some evidentiary weight for...)
 * someone can appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (who may-or-may-not agree to hear the matter)
 * Personally, I think it is a non-issue. StrangerInParadise 09:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

An Arbitrator is not the sole recuse decision maker
Recuse reference specific to Arbitrators Source;

"What disclosures should an arbitrator make to the parties before commencing the arbitration? Avoiding not only bias, but also the appearance of bias, is of vital importance to the success of an arbitration. In general, the Committee recommends that full disclosure of all knowledge and relationships to parties and their counsel be made by arbitrators in writing in advance of the hearing. Arbitrators must disclose to the parties in advance of the arbitration hearing any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias. Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Lavel Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1102.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1282(e) requires that an arbitrator disqualify himself or herself, upon the demand of any party," ....see source. Neutralizer 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,Chiacomo, for the Wikipedia link
as you may have noticed the wikipedia policy allows for anyone to post a concern;"Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process." and also leaves open the door to "required" recusement; so the assumption here by yourself and CSpurrier that it is a "personal" decision is incorrect,it seems obvious to me. It is quite difficult when one is trying to act in accordance with well established decorum and we are met with such an immediate and determined push to just be quiet and we are fed false assumptions as if they are policy like "its up to the participants" and its a "personal decision". In your particular case, the question remains, why was it reasonable for you to make a disclosure of your relationship with Amgine for consideration at the mediation between Amgine and Cartman02au and not here? Why would exactly the same disclosure here be interpreted as "slander"? It makes no sense to me at all, I'm sorry, it just doesn't. The most distrubing thing is that the 2 people I mentioned as having a possible conflict are the two people who removed my very polite and "appropriate statement" from evidence and now becoming combative by using words like "slander"....this is simply deflective of a possibly valid recuse issue, I fear. Neutralizer 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be stated that there are perceived relationships (and thhus conflicts-of-interest) between arbitors and the parties involved, but if the parties involved see no problem with it then neither do I - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy semantics and resolution process by committee to resolve issue
I am tripping over the matter of semantics, and the first impletation ArbCom has taken to address the Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine issue.

For instance, this project page itself is not properly descriptive. It should read Request for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine. At this late point in time, I am unsure that renaming this page would be beneficual or detremental, because it would break links by persons who included it on their 'Watchlist'. But I have decided to make the change for the sake of clarity. -Edbrown05 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not rename the page... When creating the case, I followed the convention on WP, which is to name the "defending" party in the page name. It will break lots of stuff.. :D --Chiacomo (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Overturning
I disagree with Blood Red Sandmans's removal of the correction notice I recently posted. ArbCom only makes decisions when there is the dispute that the community itself can't resolve. This particular dispute hasn't risen to the levels of formal arbitration. Furthermore, ArbCom derives its powers from the community, since the community created it in the first place and elects its members every year. Therefore, shouldn't the community be able to overturn an ArbCom decision it no longer feels is necessary? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * That doesn't address the fact that two people are not a consensus. The point of ArbCom is to be the top decision-making process. The whole idea is it cannot be challenged, otherwise it disbands. Also, I object in the strongest possible terms to your classification of this as a correction. That implies the original is somehow incorrect; replacement or repealment does not mean that per se. I have renamed the title accordingly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * But doesn't the fact that the DR was passed with overwhelming support indicate that the community no longer recognizes the ArbCom's decision as relevant? The community ultimately holds authority over how it conducts its business and in practice has already ignored the ArbCom's authority to enforce its decisions. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * No it doesn't. This decision does not at any point require the existance of a specific userbox policy. It is implied by the decision that community consensus would be against much of this deletion, but such has not been established. Whilst an overhwelming consensus could be submitted to ArbCom as evidence the decision should be repealed, if the community could form such consensuses then ArbCom would be useless. If a strong, polarising dispute were resolved by ArbCom the losing side would just carry on regardless, trying to form consensus against the decision or even claiming one already existed. The very point of ArbCom is, in the end, someone should be trusted to make the final decision. That same entity should be the one to accept removal of such. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The ArbCom asked the community to write a whitelist. The community didn't bother, and eventually deleted its attempt to do so.  It didn't matter, since the parties to the dispute calmed down.  There are a few userboxes about, and no-one argues about them.  I suspect BRS is right about the constitutional issues, but I just don't think it is important to revisit an archived case.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
User:Brian/Evidences

Userboxes are part of Wikinews
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Amgine disrupted the site by deleting them
  Amgine, repeatedly violated the WN:DG, and the WN:SD. Below, are examples of this behaviour have been gathered: Amgine's deletions Deletions of templates:

Userboxes are a case of free speech
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Wikinews is not Wikipedia

 * Amgine stated: “Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Our policies, and community needs, are different”
 * But also said: “…watching the developments on WP, and measured the benefits versus the drawbacks of userboxes…. The user use of category and template namespaces… userboxes should not be on Wikinews”

One this does not if in with the "Wikinews is not Wikipedia", and I agree Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Wikinews is a different community, different policy. Different needs, different proposes. How can what happens on wikipedia be what is necessarily the best for Wikinews?

Deletion was out of process
The entire deletion of the Userboxes/babel templates should have gone through WN:DR. Amgine is an admin, and a respected editor, but in this case he used his privileges in a mass deletion campaign - breaking links on user's pages - and set a bad example for other users and administrators.

Userboxes are beneficial
Babel templates are helpful. They can show a user's language skills and, if you need help on a Spanish article, you can track down who speaks it to ask for help. The same applies with Userboxes. If you were writing about US politics, you can get help from someone who knows about how the US system works, etc.

Amgine was disruptive
Amgine's actions violated the sense of community and collaboration that is Wikinews.

Re: "Wikinews is not a free wiki host or webspace provider" (WN:NOT), the policy also states "Wikinews is not a theater of war." Mass deletions don't reflect that Amgine was behaving civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.

What do user boxes do?
I mean in their most trite and useles implementation they are nothing more than a bumper sticker on a person's ass to announce some belief. What good comes from userboxes? (and I must be going to bed) -68.232.153.54 08:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Brian/Evidences