Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 29 January 2005
Case Closed on 7 February 2005
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. 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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] The parties
This case is to determine whether Gzornenplatz is Wik and if the ban that applies to the latter should be applied to the former.
[edit] Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words
I would like to request that the case of Gzornenplatz be looked at urgently please. A block/unblock war has ensued over the fact Gzornenplatz is Wik, whether an email by Jimmy on this matter constitutes a formal ban, and whether past decisions by the Arbitration Committee to reject past cases involving this user meant that you did not consider Gzornenplatz to be banned. Thank you. Angela. 20:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by affected party
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Anyone is free to speculate that I'm Wik, but it is irrelevant, since Wik is clearly not banned. See OneGuy's evidence, as well as the fact that all the time Wik neither had a ban note on his userpage, nor was on the Wikipedia:List of banned users, nor on the Ipblocklist. Gzornenplatz 07:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Comments and votes by Arbitrators (6/0/0/0)
- Accept. This needs looking at quickly - I think this should be an exception to the normal 24 hour waiting period. →Raul654 20:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept as per Raul. -- Grunt ҈ 20:53, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
- Accept sannse (talk) 20:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) also accept waiving the usual wait -- sannse (talk)
- Accept - we need to open this case before the normal 24 hour waiting period. --mav 20:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 22:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 16:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction
Admins are instructed not to block Gzornenplatz as a Wik reincarnation for the duration of the arbcom proceeding.
Passed 6 to 0 on 29 January 2005.
[edit] Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Sockpuppets
1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Redemption
2) All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor.
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Findings of fact
[edit] Gzornenplatz = Wik
1) Technical evidence presented by various developers, including Tim Starling, has shown a strong technical connection between Gzornenplatz and Wik. In addition, Wik and Gzornenplatz have on numerous occasions exhibited identical editing habits (see the evidence page). This shows, to the satisfaction of the Arbitration Committee, that Wik and Gzornenplatz are the same person.
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Wik's ban
2) Jimbo Wales has stated that Wik is under a hard ban.[1], [2] (he clarified this on IRC)
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Assumption of good faith
3) Jimbo Wales has stated to the Arbitration Committee on the subject of Gzornenplatz, "I long suspected this was Wik, and ignored evidence to the contrary out of a spirit of goodwill and a hope for reform. And when he told me to my face (in IRC) that he wasn't Wik, I chose to believe him despite my doubts. I ended up disappointed." The Arbitration Committee followed Jimbo's lead in this.
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Wik was behind the vandalbot
4) The ArbCom reaffirms the previously-established finding of fact (by Jimbo) that Wik was behind the vandalbot attack in June of 2004. (Prior to the vandalbot, Wik privately gave Jimbo an ultimatum. If not followed, he threatened to attack Wikipedia with a vandalbot that would make use of open proxies. When his ultimatum was not acceded to, this is exactly what happened. This fact has also been confirmed by developer investigation.).
- Passed 10-0.
[edit] Remedies
[edit] Extension of ban
1) The hard ban previously applied to Wik is explicitly noted to apply to Gzornenplatz. Gzornenplatz is reminded that he may appeal the ban to Jimbo Wales or to the Arbitration Committee, via e-mail, IRC, or other means of contact outside of Wikipedia.
- Passed 10-0.
