Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jimmyvanthach/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

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

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye 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] Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 16:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 04:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) User:Jimmyvanthach has edited a number of articles (user contributions) which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam in a manner which is associated with the viewpoint advocated by the website of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty and The Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League and has advocated that viewpoint although his exact identity and connection with that group is uncertain.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 04:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) User:Jimmyvanthach or someone with the same point of view and history of advocacy has also used the accounts Contributions Celindgren (the actual C.E.M. Lindgren has no connection with this account, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tran_Van_Ba#E-mail_evidence_regarding_impersonation), and Contributions Tran Van Ba as well as the anonymous ip 198.26.120.13

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 04:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba are banned from editing articles which relate to the royal family of Vietnam and articles which relate to the recent history and politics of Vietnam.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Do we need to bother specifying that simply changing usernames doesn't avoid this decree? I don't know, the wording seems to imply that to me, but maybe I'm being overly picky.)
  4. the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (the people/person, not the accounts, of course)
  6. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 04:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Edits by User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba to articles which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam or to the recent history and politics of Vietnam may be removed by any user. In the event the banned users attempt to restore removed edits they may be banned by any administrator for a brief period (a day or less but up to a week in the event of repeat offenses).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 04:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I believe this problem was caused partially by not understanding that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy; understandable, as it sometimes seems that rule is honored more in the breach than in its observation. Please feel welcome to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and enjoy editing in other areas. Fred Bauder 22:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm not an abitrator, but would it make sense to reattribute edits of User:Tran Van Ba and User:Celindgren to User:Tran Van Ba and ban the first two usernames for being innappropriate? It appears that he's only editing from User:Jimmyvanthach now. Dunc|☺ 16:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- oh yes, and delete the page User:Celindgren. Dunc|☺ 16:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Fred Bauder 16:55, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have blocked Celindgren for an infinite time and deleted the bogus biography on his user page (I don't think an arbitration decision is needed in light of the bogus biography). Tran Van Ba is, I guess, a living person too, but associated with the issue at least. Also, no bogus biography has been advanced. Fred Bauder 17:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have blocked Tran Van Ba also, I will watch for an attempt to edit by Jimmyvanthach and unblock his ip should it be necessary. Fred Bauder 17:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an arbitrator; I answered an RFC on this issue. It seems to me that censuring the violator in this case may not do much good (sockpuppets are so easy to create), and may only gain us another enemy (vandalism is so easy). Would it not serve the long term good better to draw up a list of all infected articles and give Dunch blanket Arb approval to fix or delete? I'm not sure Dunch is an admin, but I could assist him in cleaning up after this guy (these guys) Jimmyvanthach. Goodwill is like air to Wikipedia, and the articles are the real problem. Tom - Talk 16:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This user is welcome to edit here either under his own username or some other. What is being banned is adding this particular point of view to articles which relate to Vietnam. It doesn't matter who adds it so long as it advocates this particular point of view. Should it happen that part of the Vietnamese community begins to take this claim seriously the ban can be withdrawn. It is using Wikipedia to advocate this point of view in the face of lack of evidence of support by the Vietnamese community which makes this decision appropriate. In any event third parties, not the advocates of this point of view should take the lead. Fred Bauder 23:30, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. I move we close this case as 5 arbitrators have voted for all portions of the decision. Fred Bauder 23:54, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Aye. Jwrosenzweig 05:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 21:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 21:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jimmyvanthach_Proposed_decision_3b37.html"