Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654/Decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is archived discussion that led up to the decree given in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654

Voting

all proposed - Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority yay vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yay 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.

Arbitrator findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) We find that Plautus satire (PS) has been a highly disruptive influence on the community from nearly the same moment this user joined Wikipedia. This user quickly became involved in numerous edit wars that resulted in those articles being protected. Such activity is counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and must not be encouraged.

2) We find that Plautus satire has sent abusive emails to several Wikipedians, notably Silsor, BCorr and Jimbo Wales, relating to Wikipedia business. We find that these emails are unacceptable personal attacks.

3) We find that Plautus satire has been a highly disruptive user of several other online forums and has been banned from some of them. While this in itself is not admissible toward forming any decision of Plautus satire's guilt on Wikipedia, it does, when combined with the activity already seen on Wikipedia, lead us to believe that PS will not be able to become a Wikipedian in good standing in the foreseeable future.

Arbitrator remedies

All proposed:

1) Plautus Satire's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are to be revoked for a period of one year.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:

  1. Martin 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (My reason for this vote is based solely on Plautus's behaviour off-Wikipedia, notably his emails to Silsor, BCorr, and to Jimbo Wales. I judge that these emails are unacceptable personal attacks, and coupled with the low chance of a peaceful return to Wikipedia by Plautus, make a one year ban appropriate.)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I have come to this conclusion on a similar basis as Martin; personal attacks to such an extent are unacceptable and counter-balance any other concerns.)
  3. mav 08:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I concur - his emails to Wikipedians are completely uncalled for very abusive personal attacks. There is also a great deal of evidence for general bad behavior and a great deal of support for a ban.)
  4. Gutza 10:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Basically the same rationale. Should there not have been so much aggressive behaviour off Wikipedia, I would've probably inclined towards a much milder remedy, as I could have concievably considered his Wikipedia activity as added entropy, noise, whatever. But his off-Wikipedia behaviour is utterly unacceptable, and the whole process is obviously fueling itself.)
  5. the Epopt 15:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ditto. Whatever faint mitigations and extenuations there may have been for his on-Wikipedia behavior were overridden by his e-mails.
  6. Delirium 09:46, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) For the reasons above.
  7. Camembert 13:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I concur with mav.
  8. Nohat 17:03, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:


Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 1:

2) Plautus Satire's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are to be revoked for an indefinite period of time.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:

  1. There is no reasonable prospect a one year ban would be effective. This is based on his obvious inability to conform his behavior in most respects to community standards. I propose an indefinite ban. Fred Bauder 01:56, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 09:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (My second choice.)
  3. the Epopt 15:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'd prefer a permanent ban to a one-year ban, but the difference is small enough that I won't be upset either way. Changed to vote against; see below.

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:

  1. Gutza 10:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (People do change. I don't think having to deal with him again in one year is so much hassle as to deny him the right to a clean second chance at that time.)
  2. Martin 18:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I do not believe in lifetime bans)
  3. the Epopt 18:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (After following Martin's link to MeatBall and wandering around in that discussion for a while, I've changed my mind. See? It is possible!)
  4. Camembert 13:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I also am philosophically opposed to indefinite bans. Plautus may change - in any case, we should give him the chance to do so.
  5. James F. (talk) 14:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Similarly, I don't believe in life-bans; at least, not for this.)
  6. Nohat 17:04, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 2: