Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Irismeister has violated the parole set on him in the last arbitration case dozens of times, and as a result has been given multiple temp-blocks.

Aye:
  1. Martin 04:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 01:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) Irismeister has turned his user page and sections of his user talk pages into a long rant about Wikipedia and its contributors. This is not the intended purpose of Wikipedia user pages - see wikipedia:user page.

Aye:
  1. Martin 04:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Free speech is not something that applies to users of Wikipedia with regard to their use of our facilities.
  4. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) - Free speech is not a suicide pact. I see no reason to waste project resources giving him a soapbox from which to badmouth the project.
Nay:
  1. He is expressing his opinions and is communicating with other Wikipedians regarding Wikipedia policy, the intended purpose of Wikipedia user pages. Fred Bauder 12:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) The phrase "free as in speech" comes to mind.
  3. Delirium 01:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) I'm fine with his user page; it's most of the rest of his edits I see as problematic.
Abstain:
  1. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'd rather not dictate too much what people have on their user page. Of course, if there are personal attacks, that's another thing, but that's covered by other parts of the ruling anyway.

3) Irismeister has knowingly and repeatedly violated ArbCom rulings:

4.2.2 Editing restrictions
Aye:
  1. mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 01:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) The personal attack parole on Irismeister is altered, such that if he makes further personal attacks or legal threats in the future, admins may ban him for a period of up to one month, or up to one year in more extreme cases.

Aye:
  1. Martin 04:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 01:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'd rather we just ban him for a period outright. That's enough for now.
Abstain:

2) Irismeister is instructed to cease ranting about Wikipedia and Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. Martin 04:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 01:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) "Rant" is rather unclear, and personal attacks are already banned.
Abstain:

3) The above personal attack parole (#1) is extended to cover rants.

Aye:
  1. Martin 04:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Not without a definition of "rant" more precise than "I know it when I see it."
  3. Delirium 01:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure what a "rant" is, exactly, and personal attacks are already banned.
Abstain:
  1. Almost everything that comes from him could be considered a rant... mav 06:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Mav. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4) Irismeister is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. 1st choice, Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) I do not support lifetime or indefinite bans. In a century, maybe even in just a few decades, even a raving loon may lapse into sanity.
  2. I do not support indefinite bans, or ones that are effectively so. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. --mav 23:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indefinite bans are not a good idea in my opinion.
  5. Delirium 01:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) - it's tempting, but I'm not sure.


5) Irismeister is banned for 25 years from editing Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. 2nd choice, Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) And will you be here to make sure he doesn't try to sneak back in October 2029? Twenty-five years is a life sentence.
  2. I do not support indefinite bans, or ones that are effectively so. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. --mav 23:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) It's effectively an indefinite ban.
  6. Delirium 01:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

6) Irismeister is banned for 5 years from editing Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. 3rd choice, Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 23:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. This is effectively an indefinite ban. --mav 23:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) It's bordering on effectively indefinite, in my opinion, and I think that one year is plenty long enough.
  3. Delirium 01:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


7) Irismeister is banned for one year from editing Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. 4th choice, Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 01:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) (1 year is my upper limit; I don't think reviewing bans once per year is unduly difficult)
  5. →Raul654 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 21:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}


Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

[edit] Ayes

  1. A year ban and the very strict parole afterward is enough. --mav 21:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sufficient remedies have been passed. Delirium 22:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 23:05, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 06:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Camembert 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) But with the proviso that if another arbitrator comes in and votes for the five-year ban, giving it the required five votes, we extend the ban from one year to five. I don't see any reason not to finish this off now, however.

[edit] Abstains

  1. Abstain for now - the 5 year ban has 4 supporting and 0 opposing votes (it needs 5); it could well pass, yet. →Raul654 22:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    OK - I voted in those items as well. --mav 23:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Raul; I'd prefer to see the same number of overall votes on all of the measures before voting to close... James F. (talk) 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)