Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision

Add links
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.

Proposed temporary orders[edit]

Enacted 1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

Aye:
  1. Perhaps a little too strong. James F. (talk) 19:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 02:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 00:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 01:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 11:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. The Cunctator 17:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Would like there to be some time limit on this if the gears of the AC grind too slowly.
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Shorne not reverting in that area, thus I've removed that user's name (vote below). mav 11:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1.5) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact short blocks for violations of this, up to one week in length.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 22:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) -- This would give sysops flexibility, so that an edit to Gewurztraminer would earn a ban of a few hours, while an edit to Gdansk would earn a week in The Hole.
Nay:
  1. Delirium 00:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) (I think 24-hr bans should suffice for the temporary order)
  2. Shorne not reverting in that area mav 11:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. This is a bit too strong for my liking. James F. (talk) 02:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enacted 2) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, Kevin Baas, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

Aye:
  1. Perhaps a little too weak; not sure. James F. (talk) 19:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 02:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) -- very weak but better than nothing.
  4. Delirium 00:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 11:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. The Cunctator 17:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Would like there to be some time limit on this if the gears of the AC grind too slowly.
Nay:
  1. Far, far too weak. →Raul654 01:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

Aye:
  1. --mav 12:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 17:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 13:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. The Cunctator 18:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) I find the use of "whilst" a bit precious.
  6. Delirium 02:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (though some reverts are fine, when done in addition to discussion)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (agree w/Martin)
Nay:
Abstain:


3) When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (and/or on the talk page)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (edit summary and talk page is ideal, but edit summary at the very least)
Nay:
Abstain:


4) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (and/or in the edit summary)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (talk page is necessary, I'd say, Martin -- otherwise you can't have much of a dialogue)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


6) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


7) Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 09:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (as long as this is not taken to indicate that I support people blatantly refusing to compromise in general -- I think the cases where we cannot compromise are usually rare)
Nay:
  1. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (reasonable compromise should always be attempted)
Abstain:


8) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 09:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 15:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I agree with Martin, but not strongly enough to feel this is a poor principle.)
Nay:
  1. Martin 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (compromise is part of dispute resolution, not a precursor to it)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) On further thought, agree with Martin; prefer my alternative.
Abstain:


8.1) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the later stages in the dispute resolution process.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 02:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 21:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 21:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily have all violated the three revert rule on numerous occasions during numerous disputes. Kevin Baas has as well, but not nearly to the extent of the others. Gzornenplatz refused to follow it even after being asked by Jimbo himself.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) During many of those disputes, Gzornenplatz, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and especially VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue.

Random sampling of non-use of talk page:

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) On November 7, Gzornenplatz began disputing dozens of articles written by JohnArmagh with no reason given. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6]

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 15:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed decision[edit]

Remedies[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) For repeated violation of the three revert rule, VeryVerily and Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are banned for two months.

Aye:
  1. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Even for such egregious reversion, I think this is abruptly harsh -- revert parole would suffice I think, or perhaps a much briefer ban. The revert rule is only gradually becoming part of the community and culture here, and I think we go too far with the above punishment. Users who have personally attacked users and threatened them legally have been treated far more lightly in their first arbitration. I would support a ban of up to two weeks in this instance.)
  2. mav mav 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) (given Michael Snow's and Dante's comments on the talk page along with the new 3RR enforcement policy, I've changed my mind; see item 8)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) I, too, am changing my vote. (Was "aye") James F. (talk) 04:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC) Also changing from "aye" in light of further discussion and the new proposed remedy. --Delirium 07:45, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 19:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) - Pending the outcome of the newly proposed remedy


2) For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopenz, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks.

Aye:
  1. mav 07:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I don't see enough of an imbalance to treat them differently -- same all around would be preferred by me, one or two weeks doesn't matter to me.)
Abstain:


3) For making personal attacks on Arbitration pages and trying to disrupt the process of Arbitration, Shorne is banned for one week.

Aye:
  1. mav 07:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (In case anyone is wondering why I support this and not 1 and 2, I take attacks far more seriously than reversion: we can all agree that reversion is acceptable in numerous cases at Wikipedia, but personal attacks are never called for.)
Nay:
Abstain:


4) VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are hereby limited to one revert per page per day (this includes any page editable on the English Wikipedia).

Aye:
  1. mav 07:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I assume that this is indefinite; perhaps just for a year?)
  5. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relavant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.

Aye:
  1. mav 07:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

6) For violating the three revert rule at least twice, Kevin Baas is banned for 2 days.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 08:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (If you're giving the others two months, I support this measure. If we modify the other sentences down, then I agree that this seems unnecessarily punitive.)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC) Not really a constructive measure, but more of a retroactive punitive one, IMO. Given that the 3RR enforcement is passing by wide margin, future violations will be automatically punished with 24-hour bans, taking care of the problem henceforth without our intervention.
  2. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) Agree with Mark; will not cure, merely punish.
  3. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Given changes to the 3RR enforcement policy, I've changed my mind. mav 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

7) If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may each request that the Arbitration Committee reduce or lift the revert parole against them.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 21:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 04:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

8) For repeated violations of the three revert rule, VeryVerily and Shorne and Gzornenplatz are placed on a 3 month general probation. If during this period they violate the other remedies passed in this case, then they can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of their probation period banned from editing the English Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. mav 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)(Given recent changes to the 3RR enforcement policy - allowing for 24 hour blocks - I now feel that a probation period is better)
  2. →Raul654 19:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 04:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 14:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 07:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. What does the word "repeatedly" mean in this proposed ruling? [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 20:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I agreed. I have removed the word (I don't think Mav will mind). →Raul654 21:04, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 04:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. mav 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) (not needed per item 2)
    I disagree - this remendy says that reverting a page more than once in 24 hours is bannable, while the other one says that reverting it without discussing is bannable. I believe both are necessary. →Raul654 19:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Yep - you are right. --mav
Abstain:

2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. mav 07:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 07:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 10:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. --the Epopt 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Since Ruy Lopez was intimately involved in these matters, I'd suggest adding him to the case as well. →Raul654 04:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm told my michael snow that the case of VV, Shorne, and Ruy Lopez was merged into this case, so my suggestion has already been effected. →Raul654 06:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, I'd like to say I find this edit particularly disturbing. →Raul654 08:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

Since there's been no action here in quite a while, and since everything except the last finding of fact (That Gzornenplatz began disputing a lot of articles) and the last two remedies have the necessary votes, I move to close. →Raul654 01:31, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

  1. I second the motion. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 16:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since I just added a new proposed remedy, I object to closing at this time. --mav 18:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I withdraw the motion →Raul654 19:43, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close 2[edit]

  1. Ok, now that Mav's new remedy has enough votes to pass, I move to close. →Raul654 07:50, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Okay, I re-second the motion. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 16:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 00:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 18:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily/Proposed_decision&oldid=431104251"