Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Appeals to Jimbo 2 Lack of previous ban? 3 3RR 4 Lack of previous ban? 5 Banning Wik 6 Some legalistic arguments 7 Kerpal

[edit] Appeals to Jimbo

May I suggest:

(which Jimbo has the option to review) instead of (optionally subject to review by Jimbo), for clarity? --fvw* 20:12, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Even this is contrary to Wikipedia:Banning policy. Under the Banning Policy, a user banned by the ArbCom can appeal to Jimbo to lift or reduce the sanction. Of course, how much time Jimbo gives any such appeal is no doubt dependent on its merits (I'd guess he'd dismiss spurious appeals out of hand, for instance), but the right to appeal to him remains, jguk 21:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information, Jimbo has already said he has no plans ever to overrule the arbcom. →Raul654 21:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I expect he'd ask the AC what it thought first. That is, I doubt it would be a constitutional crisis for Jimbo to lift an AC ban - David Gerard 01:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course everyone has the right to appeal to Jimbo (we also have the right to cluck like a chicken, that doesn't need to be mentioned either). The point is that Jimbo has the right to review; What his reasons for reviewing (from own motivations, in response to appeal, or due to temporary insanity) are doesn't matter. --fvw* 21:17, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of previous ban?

Presumably the ArbCom have asked Jimbo whether or not he has actually banned Wik/Gzornenplatz. It would be useful if the ArbCom would publish Jimbo's reply, jguk 21:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

"All users must follow the three-revert rule unless otherwise restricted by decree of the Arbitration Committee or by Jimbo Wales" comes too close to "Every user is entitled to revert any article 3 times in 24 hours". Reverting an article (or even worse, many articles) 3 times each 24 hours for a prolonged period of time is itself disruptive and should be discouraged. As noted by whoever left the "abstain" before, the 3RR does not apply to Gzornenplatz/Wik in any case, as he is subject to a 1RR, jguk 21:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A wording like "all users are subject to the penalties described in" might be more helpful. silsor 21:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The wording has now been changed by Raul to something a lot better than the original, jguk 22:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We clarified that the 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement, in the recent Charles Darwin case - David Gerard 01:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of previous ban?

Presumably the ArbCom have asked Jimbo whether or not he has actually banned Wik/Gzornenplatz. It would be useful if the ArbCom would publish Jimbo's reply, jguk 21:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banning Wik

I have to say, had I known that Wik was at all likely to return, when I was on the AC I would have gladly added a decision onto his open case to ban him. As I recall, the idea was floated at the time, but no one felt it was important because most people were convinced Wik was so angry he would never return. His bot vandalism of this site was more extensive and destructive than anyone I can think of, and I see no reason to extend Wik any courtesies now because it doesn't say anywhere that he is banned. I'm not normally a hanging judge, but in this case Wik would need to apologize abjectly and fully. On the question of whether or not Gz is Wik, I am not making any statement, although I trust the AC is examining that evidence for themselves. Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think if a person does good work, you just have to deal with his or her personality problems. That's the price of relying on volunteers. A person's constructive efforts should outweigh all other considerations. Everyking 21:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No - it's been pretty much established that good behaviour does not earn points towards bad behaviour - David Gerard 01:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So in other words, if I made one really good edit or created a featured article, I'd be allowed to get away with a lot of vandalism? Do you even know WHAT vandalism Wik did? He is probably the worst vandal that I've seen since I came onto the encyclopedia. RickK 22:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A person's history of good or bad contributions does not excuse breaking the rules. However, it can be (and often is) taken into account when assessing punishment. →Raul654 22:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I remember rolling back a lot of the vandalism to Jimbo's user page and such, when he was randomly changing the letters and that kind of thing. So yeah, I'm aware. But nevertheless, I believe in tolerance and that a person's good contributions should be weighed against the bad, and if the good outweigh the bad by any significant margin, then the person should be deemed a valued contributor. Everyking 22:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to ban Gzornenplatz for what happened many months ago. Gzornenplatz is not vandalizing right now and most of his edits are very good. Gzornenplatz's current good behavior should be taken into consideration, and the ban for old sock puppet abuse should be reduced to 1 week instead OneGuy 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz has been lying to us all to avoid sanction for one fo the worst vandal attacks in Wikipedia history. I have a very hard time looking at anything he does in a good light. Snowspinner 23:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lying? I haven't seen Gzornenplatz explicitly deny that he is Wik (which would be lying if he is Wik), though he has not admitted it either OneGuy 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know -- his coy replies which avoid having to answer the question are counterproductive, and eat away at the web of trust that is necessary for this project to be productive. If he isn't Wik, he's being intentionally disruptive by not ending the matter, and if he is Wik, his refusal to answer the question indicates, to me at least, that he understands that this community would be generally outraged at the thought of allowing Wik to return here after the vandalbot attacks. And Everyking, I have weighed the good and the bad with Wik -- I think you underestimate the bad. If he returned openly apologizing for the vandalism, that would be one thing, but sneaking back like a thief in the night would indicate to me that he is not sorry for his actions (and is therefore liable to repeat them again, should this community dare to offend him as it did last June). Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand. Are we just going to forget all of the damage that Wik did? Sure seems like it. RickK 23:57, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

You and I won't forget, Rick, and I think many others won't either. Whether anything is done about it seems uncertain. But I don't suppose there's any purpose continuing to leave notes here, since I think the AC can see the community's perspective (at least, the perspectives of a few of us) -- I won't leave any more of them, anyhow. Jwrosenzweig 00:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some legalistic arguments

Okay, I have a bit of a problem with the finding of fact that "2) Jimbo Wales has stated that Wik is under a hard ban.[1] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013071.html), [2] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013576.html) (he clarified this on IRC)"

Having read those two mailing list posts, they suggest that Jimbo certainly said that Wik should be hard-banned. But they don't seem to be explicit statements that he is. I also find the fact that all this occurs either on the mailing list or on IRC to be disturbing - if Jimbo wants to say that Wik is hard-banned, he should say it somewhere that is not exclusive of many editors (and administrators, for that matter) who do not read the mailing list/go on IRC. Certainly, there is rather a lack of evidence on Wikipedia itself that Wik was hard-banned - he was not on the list of banned users, his user page did not say he was banned, and so forth. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that both Jimbo and the ArbCom have known for quite some time that Gzornenplatz is Wik, and have done nothing about it. In fact, the quote OneGuy presents in the evidence section shows pretty clearly that as recently as a month ago, Jimbo knew that Gzornenplatz was Wik, and explicitly said that Gzornenplatz's behavior might in the future cause a ban. This of course implies that he was not, a month ago, banned.

So why is this being brought up now? It would appear that this is a matter of debate now because lots of editors have realized that Gzornenplatz is Wik, not because this is new to either the arbcom or to Jimbo. This doesn't speak too well for either of them, imo. If Gzornenplatz should be banned because Wik is under a hard ban, this was equally true when the Arbcom found out he was Wik several months ago. Same deal for Jimbo. Claims of "taking Gzornenplatz at his word" are pretty dubious, given both how obvious it is just from editing patterns that they are one and the same, that he was fairly careful never to actually say he wasn't Wik, as far as I can tell, and that it is within the range of possibilities to figure out technically whether or not he is Wik, which seems to have been done and confirmed. So, I ask again, why is this being brought up now? What has changed between the times when Jimbo and the arbcom figured out that Wik was Gzornenplatz, and the present, besides the fact that now a lot of other people have figured out as well and are (metaphorically) crying for blood? john k 18:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unlike IRC, the en-Wikipedia-l mailing list is considered part of Wikipedia proper, and policy announcements from Jimbo can (and usually are) made there. →Raul654 18:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But such policy announcements should also be put somewhere on wikipedia proper. Furthermore, given that many have questioned whether those mailing list comments actually constitute a hard ban, Jimbo should make crystal clear in some non-IRC format that Wik is hard-banned. Do you have any response to the rest of my comments? john k 18:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo said something and the community acted upon it. Jimbo has also stated, very specifically, to us on IRC that he fully intended his statements to be considered a hard ban. We have confirmed the veracity of that statement by our votes. The reason this has been brought up now is due to the fact that different factions in the community are fighting over it. That has to stop, and we need to get back to work. --mav 21:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Controversial blocks controversial blocks include:

• suspected "sock puppets" or "reincarnations" of banned users
• logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block

Both these points apply here. Whatever Wik did many months ago, he is not involved in vandalism right now and should have been judged for his current contribution to Wikipedia. OneGuy 21:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This whole process is rather silly. We pretend that we are trying to do things based on principles, but what we really are here is courtiers interpreting the rather inconsistently expressed will of our (benevolent) monarch. Once again, Jimbo has known for months that Gzornenplatz was Wik. He made no effort to see that Gzornenplatz was banned. This suggests either that he did not mean for Wik to be hard-banned, or he intended to continue with the pleasant fiction that Gzornenplatz was not Wik in order to avoid clarifying the situation. The latter seems more likely. in that case, we have essnetially been operating under a system where Jimbo knowingly ignored his previous hard ban of Wik, and tolerated his renewed presence on Wikipedia. This is, of course, perfectly appropriate if people judge it to be so. It would also be perfectly appropriate to have banned him at that point. What is unjust here is that in spite of the fact that none of the people concerned in making this decision (jimbo and the arbitrators) have actually learned anything new - you already knew that Gz was Wik, and Gz has not been behaving badly in a way that would make bringing up the long-ignored fact that he was Wik relevant (that is to say - if Gz had started massive vandalization of wikipedia or massive edit warring, or whatever, there would be no need to go through an arbitration process - the fact that he was Wik could then validly be brought up, and he banned unilaterally). So you are changing your policy because a bunch of editors who dislike Wik found out that Gz was Wik and started yelling about it, not because either your knowledge, or the situation with Gzornenplatz had actually changed. This seems intolerable - if Gzornenplatz should not have been editing because Wik was under a hard ban, then this discussion occurred as soon as you had evidence that they were the same person. If Gz was tacitly being given a second chance (which seems to be the case), then he should be given a second chance, and this should not have been changed because various people complained.

In short, while I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to Wik/Gzornenplatz (although the Vandalbot attack was a genuinely terrible violation of Wikipedia principles), I have no problem seeing why people think he should be banned (although I largely disagree). I certainly see nothing wrong with the various editors who, upon realizing that Gzornenplatz and Wik were one and the same, argued that he was banned. What is unconscionable here is that the ArbCom (and Jimbo) obtained knowledge about Wik/Gzornenplatz's identity, chose to keep it secret and to tolerate his continued presence here, and then have immediately changed their minds when people started to complain. What kind of policy is this? john k 22:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is to say - you (arbitrators, Jimbo, whoever) knew about Wik being Gzornenplatz, didn't tell anyone, chose not to do anything about it, and to allow him to continue to edit, and then cravenly conceded to popular pressure once the identity became commonly known. While either a decision to ban Gzornenplatz or a decision to tacitly let him continue is defensible on its own, this kind of shift is deeply disappointing, and doesn't really speak well of anybody involved. john k 22:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the FoF, Jimbo suspected that Gzornenplatz was Wik, but deliberately avoided deeper investigation to give him a chance to reform. That chance has largely been squandered. Snowspinner 22:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

The chance has been "squandered" by what? Nothing Gzornenplatz did since that time justified randomly banning him now OneGuy 22:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wik was not hard banned because he quit editing Wikipedia before his vandalbot activities could be applied to him. The person behind the vandalbot could be said to have been hardbanned by aclaimation. Gzornenplatz who is a user created by that same person is editing in the face of a hard ban regardless of his useful edits. Please accept our apologies for our delay and procrastination. Fred Bauder 23:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

To Snowspinner: What OneGuy said. The reason for the action now is not that Gzornenplatz has done anything outrageous, but that a lot of editors just realized that he was Wik. The current FoF say nothing about whether Gzornenplatz has squandered a chance for reform. They say that he is hard-banned for being Wik. Fred: I appreciate the apology. But i wish you would explain why you took no action when you initially found out, and what it was that prompted you to take action now. Either banning Gzornenplatz as soon as you figured out he was Wik, or allowing him to stay and have another chance would be justifiable, I think. But kind of letting him have another chance, and then banning him when a lot of people yell at you for doing so, does not inspire much confidence. john k 03:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this misunderstands part of the history here. It is not as though Wik was a good contributor who went crazy one day and launched a vandalbot attack. Wik was a problematic contributor for a long time. He contributed both good and bad things, and eventually the bad got bad enough that he was put under sanction by the Arbcom. He is notable as the first person to require a second arbcom case. The next person to achieve this fate was Irismeister. When he was put under sanction a second time, he defied the ruling, launched a vandalbot attack, and then immediately returned as Gozrnenplatz. He then commenced the exact same behavior that got him taken to the arbcom previously, and was, in fact, brought to the arbcom for it and sanctioned for it yet again. Snowspinner 04:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your description of Wik. However, the noted behavior from Gzornenplatz was evident months ago. And, pretty clearly, the arbcom and Jimbo pretty much knew that he was Wik at that time. If it had been brought up during the previous arbitration, that would have been fair. It also would have been fair to have just banned Gzornenplatz as soon as it was realized he was Wik/Vandalbot operator. But neither of these is what happened. The arbcom knew for months that Wik and Gzornenplatz were the same, and did nothing about it. Gzornenplatz, althoug he has been problematic in the past, has done nothing in the last few weeks to generate controversy - the RfC about him was months ago, and was resolved by the arbitration committee ruling. And, again, the findings of fact in this case are simply misleading. Gzornenplatz is clearly not being banned simply as a reflexive result of it being discovered that he is Wik, which is the clear implication of the arbcom's findings of fact and principles. Because if that were the case, they'd have banned him months ago. Recidivism doesn't seem to be the case either - none of the evidence presented relates to bad behavior, simply to the fact that he is Wik, and to the question of whether or not Wik is banned. The transparent dishonesty on the part of the Wikipedia authorities during this whole episode troubles me far more than the fate of Wik/Gzornenplatz. With an honest, open process, I think any proposed fate for Wik/Gzornenplatz is justifiable - including a hard ban. But the process has been secretive (the Arbcom and Jimbo seem to have decided what to do in an IRC session), and the reasoning presented in the page is simply a farce. john k 07:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are two reasons to make a sockpuppet after something like what Wik did. The first is to avoid consequences. The second, and subtly different reason, is to get a second chance without the baggage of your past actions. I think Jimbo and the AC were hoping that Wik was going for a second chance. When he fell back to the same behavior, they put down another arbcom ruling to see if he'd reform. He didn't, and they finally realized that their assumption of good faith was in error.

I do share your concern with the decision process, however. Though I think it is important for the arbcom to be able to deliberate privately, the appearance of a decision, its subsequent removal, and the appearance of a whole new decision that took only a few hours to complete and close did make it clear that the arbitrators are coming to consensus privately and then making a public show of decision. I wish that the arbcom would make these decisions more public. On the other hand, I understand the arbcom's desire not to be spammed by advocacy once they've started going over the evidence. Snowspinner 13:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't too far disagree with you. But, again, there were no findings of fact related to Gzornenplatz's supposed recidivism. The decision, as it stands, gives no reason why the arbcom is acting now against Gzornenplatz (and neither did the deleted proposals from a week ago). Furthermore, there was no evidence presented on the evidence page relating to anything other than the questions of whether Gz is Wik, and whether Wik was hard-banned. Furthermore, there has been no RfC for Gzornenplatz since the arbitration ruling. That is to say - if some evidence had been presented that Gz was continuing to act badly after the arbcom ruling, and if that evidence had shown up in the findings of fact, I would basically agree with you. But that is not what happened. As it stands, the arbcom ruling is a monument to fickleness. Even assuming that the arbcom was not aware that Wik was quasi-hard-banned (since nobody seems to have been clear on this) because of the Vandalbot, from their original proposed decision, it is clear that they were aware of Wik's editing restrictions. The time to bring up that Gz was a sock puppet/new identity of Wik was then, because it was already clear that Gz was violating previous arbcom rulings relating to Wik. So this decision leaves me pretty unimpressed. john k 15:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say the reason for "why now?" is clear. It's simply that there was demand for a decision to be made one way or the other. While there was a stable status quo, no decision was made either way. Perhaps that was the wrong thing to do, but it is what seemed best to Jimbo and the committee at that time. Once a conflict within the community started up, with a destructive block-unblock war, it became clear that a decision would have to be made. As for this being us "cravenly conced[ing] to popular pressure"... isn't that another way of saying that we responded the community concern, and the consensus that clarification and a decision were needed? We are supposed to consider the views of the community.

On how we come to decisions: I'm not sure that this is the right page to discuss this, but a few points... we use a combination of on and off Wikipedia decision-making. Often one of us will independently write up some proposals on the decision page, and the others will vote and comment on that page. Other times we may discuss a proposal in more detail off Wikipedia before it is posted (with various numbers of us involved in the discussion and the rest commenting on the decision page if they so choose). You can see both of these methods in action in this case - for example, discussion on the necessity for Finding of Fact 4 was largely on the decision page, while discussion on other points were off-Wikipedia. The reason for the partial proposed decision early in the case was that an arbitrator started this process off, and then a few of us said that we would prefer to discuss further first. I'm sure there is nothing that I've said here that isn't obvious from watching the decision pages. I think if you want to continue discussing the way the committee works it would be sensible to move this to a general policy talk page. Note that this page will have dropped off of the watch lists of anyone who uses our Arbitration Tasks template to keep track of case pages. Feel free to copy what I have said to a better page. -- sannse (talk) 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Sannse. I apologize for some of my harsher language - it was uncalled for. I think my basic problem here is that the findings of fact and evidence presented simply don't tell the whole story - there are other considerations in play which are left unsaid. The considerations you mention about a destructive block-unblock war are indeed serious, and I agree that a decision needed to be made, one way or the other. I just wish that the findings on the proposed decision page actually corresponded with what was really going on. I also wish that the issue of the previous tacit toleration of Gzornenplatz's presence had been brought up and addressed explicitly. That is, as it stands, the decision is a fairly strong indictment of the committee for not doing anything about Gzornenplatz earlier, with no explanation of why it decided to change its mind. If Gzornenplatz was being tacitly tolerated by King and Council, the committee should have acknowledged this, and explicitly explained why this policy was no longer appropriate (or why it was never appropriate, if that is what you now believe). Instead, the committee's ruling gives a false impression of clarity to what has been going on - that the process is somehow mechanical and automatic, ignoring the fact that you've all been tolerating Gz's presence for months.

The issue of decision-making is of less concern to me, and of largely no concern to me independently. The reason why I do notice it in this context, is that the decision itself seems to explicitly hide basic facts about the situation - facts which do not reflect particularly well on the ArbCom, at least on their face. In such a situation, the kind of secretive process by which the decision came down simply makes it worse.

That said, I would like to say that I am not trying to attack the Arb Com (or Jimbo). I know that it is a thankless job, and I think that in general you do a good job. But I do think that generally there is a tendency for the official decisions of the arbitration committee not to resemble very closely the actual reasons that decisions are being made, and I wanted to say something about it. The decisions themselves are normally pretty good, but often the reasoning behind them is somewhat lacking, and seems oddly beside the point. I suppose this is a very likely result of such decisions being made by committee, but it nevertheless can grate. At any rate, there's probably not much more to say about this. Best to all. john k 20:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Gzornenplatz was not banned because nobody brought it up and it was not brought to the attention of anybody with the curiosity to investigate it (tracking down the various pages that say Gzornenplatz = Wik) and the technical ability (sysop), and who decided to follow through on it (me) until very recently. Additionally, nobody brought it before the arbcom. So it was a nonissue. We don't get paid to do this you know. silsor 20:56, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

In the evidence section of this very case you put up a note from Raul654 saying that the arbcom has known since the first Gzornenplatz arbitration case that he was Wik. Specifically:

Let me state for the record that during our previous arbcom case, the arbcom compiled evidence linking gz to wik and the evidence was about as conclusive a match as we could hope for. So really, the question of - Is Wik the same as Gz? is a nonstarter. Yes, they are. Period.

That the arbcom knew this, and did nothing, shows that your explanation simply isn't true. They've known about it for months, Jimbo has known about it for months. Both of them explicitly decided not to do anything about it. john k 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In other shocking news, humans are imperfect, even *choke* arbitrators. I wasn't aware of Gz being conclusively identified as Wik until quite recently myself. We were following Jimbo's lead in the wikilove, as FoF4 says. Note that the decision all but says "look, Gz, get writing that appeal right now." Sorry for the messy case and a somewhat Solomonish decision; we're doing our best here - David Gerard 22:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry David - by the arbcom, I obviously didn't mean every individual on the arbitration committee. I would assume that those of you who started this calendar year had no more knowledge of this than ordinary mortals. At any rate, I am less and less upset about the actual terms of the decision. It is perfectly fair to require Gzornenplatz to write to Jimbo and work out an arrangement, given the circumstances (I seriously doubt he will do it, given past experience.) All I really wish for is some acknowledgement in the case of the fact that the ArbCom (as an entity) and Jimbo tolerated his presence for several months, and that this was ended due to strong protest from other editors when it became generally known that he was Wik. Some assertion of principle that tacit toleration does not mean that the arbcom is giving up the right to go back to the letter of the law when necessary. Something along those lines. But, at any rate, I've largely burned myself out on this one. The responses you and other arbitrators have made on this page have mostly satisfied me that you are not trying to actively conceal anything, which was one of my concerns when I started up with this, and that everyone is acting in good faith. Sorry to have ranted about this for this long. john k 01:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerpal

I believe that commons:user:kerpal is a GZ clone> =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)