This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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)[reply]

I concur. Zero-tolerance for such actions. StrangerInParadise 06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I reluctantly support this request for a temporary injunction. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of userboxes

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)[reply]

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, Wikinews:User directory etc. Bawolff ☺☻

23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have to agree with StrangerInParadise's comments below Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Quote

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)[reply]

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 Wikinews: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 ☺☻

20:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Proposed findings of fact

Amgine deleted templates out of process

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

How does it say that things not addressed by policy should be deleted? Bawolff ☺☻

20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

20:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The webhost clause on Wikinews has remained unchanged and unchallenged for the history of the policy. On Wikipedia, however: [1] not discussion forum-stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles), [2] 7th edit to the policy, [3] do not upload files not relevant to encyclopedia articles, [4] not advertising, [5] first appearance of "No Original Research" to give a comparison of importance, [6] creating encyclopedia entries about yourself must be encyclopedic, [7] pages are not to be used to conduct business, [8] not a vehicle for personal opinions, [9] not a free wiki host, [10] not a place to form consensus of opinion, [11] restrictions on business-related articles to avoid promotion, [12] Wikipedia is not a right, [13] not advertising resource, [14] not a community or social club, [15] not a means of insulting/bashing, [16] not for anything other than writing an encyclopedia, [17] not a directory, [18] not a phonebook, [19] may not host your website or blog, [20] the primary formulation for Wikinews's policy, [21] add community as a means to the end of being an encyclopedia, [22] example of non-encyclopedic content not allowed on userpage (resumé, indicative that proffession would likewise not be allowed), [23] restore Wikipedia is not an anarchy - purpose to build an encyclopedia section, [24] restricts freedom where it interferes with creating an encyclopedia, [25] Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, [26] Wikipedia is not a game of nomic, [27] WP is not a blog and here's why, [28] do not use talk pages as chatroom/bulletin board, [29] Wikipedia's talk and project pages are for writing an encyclopedia, [30] Wikipedia is encyclopedia first community second message board never, [31] What your userpage is not also-not used as a webhost, [32] Wikipedia is not myspace, [33] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Quote

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

Quote

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: "The focus of User pages ..." in above. Doldrums 13:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☺☻

19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amgine deleted templates out of process but in good faith

1) Amgine deleted templates out of process, without support by Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines or Wikinews: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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 {{delete}}. Perhaps also a period of time after where s/he'd get in more trouble if s/he did anything bad. Bawolff ☺☻

02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

02:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Much like suspending admin rights, I do not support this. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was assuming that s/he'd done a bad thing because we are in the process of punishing him/her. Bawolff ☺☻

04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

I support this suggestion. Neutralizer 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make sense to subject him to an RfDA rather than de-admining, re-confirming and possibly admining again? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see your point! - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think 2 weeks is a bit much, perhaps ~5 days. Bawolff ☺☻

02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺☻

02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Only with immediate de-adminship. StrangerInParadise 12:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☺☻

02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur. StrangerInParadise 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☺☻

02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have changed the wording of the heading to better match the text of the remedy. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not like this, agree in part with Bawolff Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur. StrangerInParadise 12:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Still agreeing with Neutralizer. Bawolff ☺☻

03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the heading to better correspond to the text of the remedy. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little off topic, but how about another namespace called something like misic: for things like userboxes, or perhaps Wikinews: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 ☺☻

00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not like this Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☺☻

00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Why does Wikinews need userboxes? -Edbrown05 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone wants them. Bawolff ☺☻

20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, whats this technical solution? Bawolff ☺☻

03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This tells me what Wikipedia is doing. In what way is the above solution "worthless"? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am afraid you are avoiding my question. Could you please tell me why the proposed solution is "worthless"? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SIP meetpupet problem?! StrangerInParadise 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are talking about this. Meatpuppeteering, at its best. irid:t 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]