Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

case closed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yea or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Contents

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

It looks like Irismeister has not learned a thing and continues to be very abusive. Comments like

  • To Jwrosenzweig: Duh ! Get a life!
  • Good riddance, coward!
  • PS I assume you can read English in the above explanation.
  • Shut up, you vile bile-spitting personal attacker! :O)

are all unacceptable personal attacks that should result in a warning or two before a temp ban by any admin. I also looked at all his edits since the time he returned and found that all but a few of his edits have been to talk and Wikipedia pages where he constantly argues with other users and is often abusive. His only edits to articles (Alternative medicine and some edits to Nikola Tesla and List of Vlachs) were reverted for what appears to be cause. I am frankly ashamed that a person like this is allowed to continue editing Wikipedia and recommend we ban him from editing any page outside this set of arbitration pages until this case is decided (depending on the ruling the ban may be extended). If there are no objections, I will issue this injunction in two days. --mav 08:44, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. A sort of 'temporary injunction' might be rather a good idea, TBH. I am slightly concerned that people may take this as a 'power grab', that perhaps we're over-reaching ourselves in doing this, though. What do others think?
James F. (talk) 10:14, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I share James's concerns grabs - I'll formally propose it at wikipedia:arbitration policy, so there's at least a bit more oversight on it. Maybe chat on our mailing list a bit too. I have no objection to mav's proposed injunction in this case - if it gets six votes we can just implement it forthwith.

In terms of remedies, my feeling is that applying a personal attack parole to Irismeister would be a reasonable and sufficient response. Similarly to Wik's revert parole, this would authorise any admin to issue a one day temp-ban to Irismeister if he makes a personal attack, at their discretion. Martin 10:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Temporary rulings like this should only require 4 votes and be part of the acceptance process. --mav 07:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about what they should require. I'm just saying that, if it gets six votes in favour (sorry, five - Gutza is off internet still, isn't he?), we'll be able to implement it forthwith, without needing to change arbitration policy (which is likely to take a little while to get some buy-in, and decide the best approach). Martin 12:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have you all seen Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Proposal: temporary restraining orders? --Camembert

The stuff by Jwros on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Evidence is completely damning - the guy's not heeded our earlier warning and temp-ban at all. I've added a remedy to put him on parole, as proposed above, and supported the one month ban. Martin 14:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Disruptive activity can continue during arbitration

When some activity by a user is disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia temporary orders may be made which temporarily freeze the situation in place or prevent continuation of the disruptive situation.

  1. Support Fred Bauder 12:32, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support James F. (talk) 12:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support the Epopt 05:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, as below. Martin 10:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I agree with Martin - "principles" should be things already established, not things that we're making up on the hoof. This isn't to say that I'm opposed to the idea, just that it isn't something established as a "principle" yet. --Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat Offenders

In the case of repeat offenders who have been sanctioned for some behavior, but continue to engage in it, a temporary remedy such as a ban or limits on editing may be imposed until the matter can be considered and a decision made.

  1. Support Fred Bauder 12:32, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support James F. (talk) 12:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support the Epopt 05:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, I guess. These principles have typically been statements of current policy and practice, whereas this seems like a motion to change current policy - such motions shouldn't be case specific. Still, the idea is a good one. Martin 10:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, as above. --Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed temporary orders in this matter

Ratified as of 13 Jun 2004

As User Irismeister has continued to engaged in personal attacks following the mild sanction imposed in the previous proceeding concerning him, a ban on editing any article other than the pages concerning this arbitration and his user and user talk pages is imposed pending a final decision in this matter.

  1. Support Fred Bauder 12:32, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support James F. (talk) 12:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) (inc. italicised addition James F. (talk) 23:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC))
  3. Support mav 07:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support with italicised addition. Martin 10:13, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) (with addition) - given that there seems to be general support for the idea of these temp bans
  6. Support Delirium 06:36, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous decision

User Irismeister was the subject of a previous arbitration which resulted in his being banned for 10 days and prohibited from editing the article Iridology. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister/Decision.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:06, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ...and?
  2. Well yes. I don't believe it helps to have this as an FoF. Martin 02:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Talk:Iridology

Despite the express prohibition against editing the article Iridology, user Irismeister has continued to actively edit Talk:Iridology, see [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:06, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. I don't recall that we forbade Irismeister from editing Talk:Iridology, so this seems a non-sequitur to me. Martin 02:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - the "despite" suggests he's done something wrong in editing the talk page, but I'm not sure he has, really. Maybe we should have banned him from editing the talk page (or maybe not - I really don't know), but we didn't, so to tick him off for doing so doesn't seem right

[edit] Recruiting of Mr. Natural Health

Irismeister has gained the cooperation of User:Mr-Natural-Health, himself the defendant in a similar Arbitration action, [2] in subverting the intent of the prohibition of editing the article Iridology, MNH acting as Irismeister's proxy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:06, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't believe that this offer subverts the intent of the prohibition - if it was carried out in a mindless zombie-slave manner, then it would, but that hasn't happened yet, AFAIK. Martin 02:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Abstain or other:
  1. Recruited, yes; bypassing the prohibition... maybe James F. (talk) 14:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - weeell... I dunno. I think if we really intended Irismeister to have no hand whatsoever in the editing of that article, we should have made that clear. Maybe this would be a problem if MNH was simply acting as Irismeister proxy, but in that case, I'd like to see some evidence as part of the finding before I could support it. I can probably be convinced on this point... so try to convince me :)

[edit] Edit behavior

Activity since Irismeister returned from the ten day ban under the previous ruling shows almost no edits to articles.

Support:
  1. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. Martin 14:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) well yes, but what does that mean?
  2. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure what relevance this has

[edit] Personal attacks

Irismeister has continued to engage in personal attacks and rude behaviour following the mild sanction imposed in the previous proceeding concerning him. This is in contravention of the no personal attacks policy and is bad wikiquette. For example:

note that I (Camembert) have (at 00:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)) transferred the votes from the "temporary order" vote above to here since the finding is basically the same

  1. Support Fred Bauder
  2. Support James F. (talk)
  3. Support mav
  4. Support Martin 21:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Camembert 22:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support Delirium 06:38, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template

{text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain or other:

[edit] Proposed remedies

1) Irismeister is banned from editing Wikipedia with respect to articles which relate to health, medicine, or alternative medicine. Including their talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:15, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) (in addition to a month total ban and only with the ban order extending to talk pages)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) (inclusion of 'health' articles, to avoid facetious-argument problems)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. Camembert 00:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - the above findings of fact don't really show a problem specific to health pages (they just tend to be the pages Irismeister edits on, but maybe the problems would extend elsewhere). I think remedy 3, below, is more to the point
  2. Martin 14:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) I'm torn on this, but in the end Lee has to be right.

2) Irismeister's activity on talk pages has not significantly changed since he returned from his ten day ban. So in order to give the Wikipedia community some peace and address their current grievance with this user, we hereby order a month ban on Irismeister.

Support:
  1. mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 06:39, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 14:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I can support this if and only if the above remedy is not passed. "Time already served" under the temporary injunction should be taken into account, so total time served would be around twenty days)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:52, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC) Banning from editing medicine and alternative medicine pages is a severe sanction for this user. Additional sanctions are uncalled for. Fred Bauder 14:52, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:24, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree with Fred
Abstain or other:
  1. Camembert 00:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I need to think about this a bit more. I'm shading towards support at the moment.

3) Irismeister is again instructed to abstain from personal attacks and other breaches of Wikipedia etiquette, and placed on personal attack parole. Sysops are authorised to apply 24 temp-bans on Irismeister, at their discretion, if Irismeister breaches this instruction. Users are encouraged to remove personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Martin 14:40, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (direct and to the point. Sysops can be trusted to police this fairly and use their judgement.)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:24, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:21, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Camembert 00:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 06:39, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:

[edit] Template

{text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain or other:

[edit] Enforcement

1) Should User Irismeister continue to edit Wikipedia articles which relate to medicine or alternative medicine all such edits may be reverted or deleted, in the case of original articles, by any other user immediately and user Irismeister may be banned for a period of 30 days.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:15, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. I prefer 24 hour temp-bans for these kinds of enforcement. The experience of Wik suggests that people don't make the same mistake so frequently as to require 30 day bans. Martin 02:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - seeing as I've abstained on banning him from medicine articles, I guess I must abstain here also

2) Should User Irismeister continue to edit Wikipedia articles which relate to medicine or alternative medicine all such edits may be reverted or deleted, in the case of original articles, by any other user immediately and user Irismeister may be banned for a period of 24 hours. Continually breaching this order may result in additional arbitration committee action at its discretion.

Support:
  1. --mav 06:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:21, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:24, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. Martin 14:31, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (enforcement is solid, at least - if and only if relevant remedy passes. Support if remedy passes, otherwise oppose)
  2. Camembert 00:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) - as above

[edit] Template

{text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain or other:

[edit] Motion to close

I move to close this case. Martin 00:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seconded.
James F. (talk) 02:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, close. --mav 05:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Martin 10:32, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Irismeister_2_Proposed_decision_1113.html"