Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ban?

Given the intense disruption this particular user causes so regularly in so many places, is there a particular reason we still want him around? -Splash^talk 03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In my reluctant opinion, he will only probably exploit opportunities at reform. I hope he's banned quickly. Durova 05:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I have no objection to probation in light of his apology. Durova 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Remedies 2 through 4 are made redundant by remedy 6. Perhaps they should be made consecutive to it. Stifle 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

They are alternatives. If he's banned, he can't be on probation, but it's not indefinite. After that year, he's free to reestablish himself, however unlikely that may be. Dmcdevit·t 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was hoping to avoid with the RfC, and the reason I opened this RfAr was that I was forced to the reluctant conclusion that he is just not going to reform because in any conflict between policy and Gastrich's convictions, his convictions will always win out. Add to that the particularly forceful way in which he expresses those convictions and his tendency to personalise any opposition to his (minority) take on many subjects and you have a problem with no other obvious solution. It would be great if we could fix the problem without resorting to this, but I really can't see how that might be achieved. I hate the idea of a lynch mob coming in from Usenet and running him out of town, but I do not think that is what is happening here - too many long-time editors of too many different faith positions have attested to problems for that to be the case. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, if remedy 6 is adopted, it renders remedies 2 through 4 empty, unless they are consecutive with it. Robert McClenon 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason just (finally) posted a statement, and he's made it very clear he's not "reformed". His stated reason for being here is still very explicitly POV and anti-encyclopedic. He self-admittedly wants to "glorify God", not "write a neutral encyclopedia". I don't think a ban, in the face of this admission, is unreasonable. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde beat me to it. There are some shown here. I am not sure whether that will inform the ruling; my preference was always for restriction not outright blocking. Maybe the ArbCom will see this as evidence of intent to reform. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well. It didn't take him long to spoil it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

What is the point of proposed remedies 1 through 4 if remedy six passes? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If remedy six does not pass, remedies 1 to 4 apply. Or so I read it, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the remedies says "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". I take that to mean that remedies 1-4 start when remedy 6 finishes - in other words, Gastrich is banned from a year, and when he's allowed back his article bans and probations apply. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)