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.

Mrmiscellanious is placed on Administrative Probation

1) Mrmiscellanious is placed on Administrative Probation and is instructed not to use Sysop tools (including delete, block, roll-back) until this Arbitration is completed. Administrators may enforce this injunction through the use of short blocks not to exceed 12 hours. Blocks enacted under this injuction should be logged on WN:ALERT.

Support:

IlyaHaykinson 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) for now.[reply]
Edbrown05 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I might support if this was a bit more targeted (do not use admin tools fox x things) Cspurrier 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MrM stops admin in almost all cases

1) MrM does not use the following admin tools

1. Delete
2. Block
3. Rollback

With the exception of mass vandalism (e.g. whilley on wheels) (not even simple vandalism).

He can still revert, but only by normal means. In addition he is put on personal attack probation. Any personal attack in any form no matter how much of an attack it was resaults in an immmediate block of ten minutes to two hours.

Support:

~~Bawolff ☺☻ 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

-Edbrown05 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Civility and personal attacks

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

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

Support:

-Edbrown05 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Deprifry|+T+ 11:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus building and compromise

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

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

Support:

-Edbrown05 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going seperate ways is nearly impossible on a small community such as this one. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Although I agree with the main spirit of this, not always is Dispute res appropriate. Sometimes it is best just for the users to go their seperate ways. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bawolff--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are prohibited

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

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

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

Support:

-Edbrown05 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Deprifry|+T+ 11:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Provocation

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

Support:

Oppose:

I with agree with the first part, but inexperienced users should not be treated any differently then any other users.--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Administrators

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

Support:

I'd like to think so. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~-Edbrown05 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
This is nice in theory, and I hope our admins can be considered ambassadors, but admins are not nor should be any different then any other user. --Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

-Edbrown05 06:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Personal attacks by Mrmiscellanious

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks by other users

1) Other involved users have also engaged in personal attacks

Support:

Well, Neut did.[1] I'm pretty sure others did too. However just because one person did something rude, doesn't give you the right to do it to them.Bawolff ☺☻ 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per Bawolff --Deprifry|+T+ 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrmiscellanious has failed to collaborate

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

Support:

Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MrM has on several occasions attempted to collaborate and been ignored or attacked, however on many others he has simply failed to collaborate.--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dispute resolution process was not allowed to work because it was not followed

To resolve differences, parties to the dispute should be willing to engage in efforts to find a solution.
Failure to work towards resolving differences creates an atmosphere of ill-will that is not conductive to reporting news. Responding to the community is essential.

Users Borofkin, Neutralizer, Vonbergm, Cartman02au and International sought to address concerns with actions made by MrMiscellanious on a single 'Dispute resolution' page [linked above] where mediation was sought. MrMiscellanious answered the effort to work towards resolving differences with, "I refuse any requests for 'mediation'."
After the parties seeking relief moved the mediation to ArbCom, MrMiscellanious responded to that 'Dispute resolution' page by saying, "None of the users brought up "points". They were attacks. Nothing but attacks. That breaks one of the dispute's rules, but obviously those aren't being looked at, either. I am dumbfounded by users who claim the dispute resolution is anything but detrimental."

Support:

IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 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.

Mrmiscellanious on personal attack probation

1) Mrmiscellanious will refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. For the period of 2 months from the close of this arbitration, any administrator will block Mrmiscellanious for any edit appearing to be a personal attack. This block, notwithstanding existing policy, shall not excede 24 hours.

Support:

Oppose:

-Edbrown05 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Mrmiscellanious will participate in consensus building

1) For a period of two months following the close of this arbtiration, as suggested in Wikinews:Etiquette, Mrmiscellanious is instructed to answer questions clearly and succinctly on article talk pages concerning his objections to the publishing of said article. Editors may disregard article tags which are not explained on article talk pages if an explanation is requested.

Support:

Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

-Edbrown05 06:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC). Instruction creep[reply]
--Deprifry|+T+ 05:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrmiscellanious reconfirmation as administrator to be decide by vote

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

Support:

-Edbrown05 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mrmiscellanious shall be subject to re-confirmation as administrator

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

Support:

Provided principle above entitled Administrators is adopted. Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Deprifry|+T+ 05:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

General

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:

Civility and personal attacks

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

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

(Adopted 6/0/0/0)

Consensus building and compromise

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

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

(Adopted 4/0/2/0)

Personal attacks are prohibited

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

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

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

(Adoptd 6/0/0/0)

Provocation

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

(Adopted 5/1/0/0)

Administrators

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

(Adopted 3/1/1/1)

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

Personal attacks by Mrmiscellanious

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

(Adopted 5/0/0/1)

Personal attacks by other users

1) Other involved users have also engaged in personal attacks

(Adopted 5/0/1/0)

Mrmiscellanious has failed to collaborate

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

(Adopted 3/0/1/2)

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

Mrmiscellanious shall be subject to re-confirmation as administrator

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

(Adopted 4/0/1/1)

Vote

Four 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

IlyaHaykinson 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cspurrier 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Deprifry|+T+ 06:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff ☺☻ Glad to see this setteled. 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose