all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators is/are recused and 0 is/are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Deletion

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikinews is not a webhost

1) WN:NOT states that "Wikinews is not a free wiki host or webspace provider" and that there are better places for users to host pages to express themself.

Support:

Oppose:

This is worded badly Bawolff ☺☻ 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bawolff: WN:NOT does say that, but I think user pages are places for a WN user to express themselves to some limited degree. --IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

This statement is true, but only applicable to more extreme cases --Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Yes. In fact the policies specificly say to put bad category scheems, and user page issues at WN:DR. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in principle. WN:DG doesn't cover templates and WN:SD has a section on "other pages" which doesn't mention templates and thus seems to imply that speedy deleting them is not permitted. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Edbrown05 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Amgine did delete the userboxes without support by Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines or Wikinews:Deletion guidelines, but these guidelines nor any other policy explicitly cover the deletion of templates. Without a doubt he violated the spirit, but he did not violate the letter of these guidelines. --Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

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.

Support:

support. I believe that Amgine has violated the trust of some members of the comunity, and that needs to be addressed. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose. Amgine and all editor(s)/administrator(s) refrain from deleting userbox implementations. A policy debate open to the community will decide the issue. -Edbrown05 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe forbidding him to delete userboxes suffices. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I think this is a good way to deal with this sort of thing, but I do not think it is really necessary.--Cspurrier 15:47, 20 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Oppose. A community policy can be formed on an issue only upon the basis of what it confronts through experience with it. Since instances of userboxes have been deleted, there is currently no basis for the community to form an opinion. -Edbrown05 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I do not think it is necessary, but I am not especially opposed to it --Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

--Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Edbrown05 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but only as a sugestion to the comunity. We can't determine, thruth or policy. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Userboxes restored

1) The userboxes deleted by Amgine are to be restored. Until such time that the community has established a policy on their use, no new userboxes shall be created and no old ones shall be deleted.

Support:

--Deprifry|+T+ 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. -Edbrown05 06:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary --Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Bawolff ☺☻ 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine disenfranchised from deleting userboxes

1) Amgine is disenfranchised from deleting userboxes until further ruling from the ArbCom.

Support:

Oppose:

Likely not necessary unless the community fails to set policy. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support if it said "until policy consensus is built". --IlyaHaykinson 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, and poorly worded --Cspurrier 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This is bullshit. It's not getting anywhere. -Edbrown05 07:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee members probably aren't going to debate the crap out of an issue. An opinion is stated, and that's about it. -Edbrown05 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bawolff ☺☻

22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence added

Hopefully its ok to alert Arbitrators here that new evidence was just added on the evidence page. Neutralizer 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

The following principles are adopted as presented above and quoted here in brief:

There is a defined procedure for both speedy deletions and consensus based deletions. (Adopted 4/0/0/2)
Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors. Additionally, users should always act in good faith. (Adopted 4/0/0/2)
Administrators of Wikinews are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikinews policies. (Adopted 4/0/0/2)
The content of user pages is governed by the policies of Wikinews. This includes guidelines for civility such as Wikinews:Etiquette. (Adopted 4/0/0/2)

The following findings of fact are adopted as presented above and quoted here in brief:

Amgine deleted templates out of process, without support by Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines or Wikinews:Deletion guidelines policies. (Adopted 5/0/1/0)

The following remedies are adopted as presented above and quoted here in brief:

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. (Adopted 5/0/0/1)

Vote counts are (Support/Oppose/Abstain/Not Voting)

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.

Vote

Three net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Support:

Oppose: