Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or 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 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 enacted.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed injunction}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Not banning Gz

Enacted Admins are instructed not to block Gzornenplatz as a Wik reincarnation for the duration of the arbcom proceeding.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 21:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) vote to take effect without the usual 24 hour wait
  4. mav 21:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) (echo Sannse)
  5. Neutralitytalk 22:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 22:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[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.

Aye:
  1. This is beginning to look familliar by now... -- Grunt   ҈  00:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  01:53, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Wik's ban

2) Jimbo Wales has stated that Wik is under a hard ban.[1], [2] (he clarified this on IRC)

Aye:
  1. This was done via IRC to the arbitrators. Grunt   ҈  00:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) (added arbcom clarification)
  4. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  01:54, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[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.).

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 15:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. This has already been established... -- Grunt   ҈  15:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 17:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I do think we need to say this. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. For reasons of expediency and due to the high profile nature of this case, I've changed my vote but added language that we are reaffirming something already confirmed. mav 20:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. OK, change vote - as I said below, this is certainly true -- sannse (talk) 21:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. it hurts nothing to re-confirm our knowledge of this fact ➥the Epopt 23:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ambi 00:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
sannse (talk) 15:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) yes, of course he was, but it doesn't need to be stated here
I think it's important that this be established as a 'finding of fact' rather than just being assumed. (You know what they say about assuming things)→Raul654 16:02, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
This was the reason why Jimbo banned him. That ban is still effective. Thus we do not need to establish this, just as we do not to to re-establish a finding of fact in a new ArbCom case that we already established in a previous case. --mav 19:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
mav 19:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) (agree with above; already established beyond any reasonable doubt and already covered by Jimbo's ban)

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I added 'or to the ArbCom')
  3. David Gerard 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 01:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 01:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 15:27, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) - I'd like some clarification. First, does this refer to the hard ban mentioned in FoF 2? If so, it should say 'hard ban'. →Raul654 14:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Added. -- Grunt   ҈  15:20, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I've looked at the IRC log of our meeting with Jimbo and do not see anything above which is inconsistent or missing. I'm done - but there is still one FoF to be voted on. --mav 20:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case

  1. Everything we talked about in the IRC meeting has overwhelming and unopposed majorities. This vote to close not valid for 24 hours unless a majority of other arbs vote to close before then with no objections. ---mav 00:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 00:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (24 hrs later)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) Vote valid 00:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) unless there is a majority (as there now is)
  5. Ambi 00:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Just to pile on.. -- Grunt   ҈  00:21, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)