Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case closed

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]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) I can't agree with "ordinary users". See 1.5)
Abstain:

1.5) Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands. These include the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aye:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Though I think that at least some administrative powers should be given to every user who's been around for a while. Since we have full undeletion, everyone should be able to delete/undelete entries.
  2. Martin 16:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) also fine
Nay:
Abstain:

2) A key aspect of the job and duties of an Administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) One aspect. And it's not a duty: many admins don't get involved in blocks/unblocks.
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a little edgy about this one....a lot can be defended under the flag of disruption prevention) Prefer 2.5 Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (ditto Martin)
Abstain:

2.5) One aspect of the responsibilities of an Administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:01, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. This wording is fine, too. James F. (talk) 00:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Martin 16:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Change is disruption; is it our responsibility to prevent change? Also, I don't think it is correct to separate this responsibility from all Wikipedians. See 2.6.
Abstain:

2.6) All Wikipedians, including those with admin powers, are responsible for its content and community, in order to effect the development of a neutral and free encyclopedia.

Aye:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Not sure about the "in order to effect the development of a neutral and free encyclopedia." Anyone have a better idea?
Nay:
  1. Martin 16:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (too New Agey for my tastes, and I don't accept Cunc's objection to 2.5)
Abstain:
  1. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3) A ban is a standing order that a particular person (and all his/her reincarnations) is to be prevented from editing the Wikipedia web site. This is different from an Admin-imposed block, which is usually imposed to prevent vandalism.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) It's more that the banned user "is not permitted" to edit Wikipedia, rather than "is to be prevented". The degree to which we attempt to prevent any edits from them may vary, depending on technical issues, damage limitation, admin morale, and so forth.
  2. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.5) A ban is a standing order that a particular person (and all his/her reincarnations) is not permitted to edit the Wikipedia web site. This is different from an Admin-imposed block, which is usually imposed to prevent vandalism.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:01, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. This wording is fine, too. James F. (talk) 00:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (oops, didn't support my own motion ;-))
  6. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Users can be banned and unbanned by the Wikimedia Board, by Jimbo Wales personally, and by the Arbitration Committee.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) The board, really? I thought they avoided that kind of day-to-day stuff.
  8. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) One of the tools used to effect bans against people is to block a user account suspected of being used by them, which is a specific technical measure that stops the user account from editing; one result of this is that their IP address will be blocked from editing for 24 hours from each time that they attempt to edit with that account.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


6) Users who are generally agreed to be a "reincarnation" of a banned user can be summarily blocked.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - note generally agreed.
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. What does "generally agreed" mean? That needs to be better explicated. Something like "a preponderance of evidence".
Abstain:


7) All Administrators are expected to abide by rulings and decrees from Jimbo Wales, the Board, and the Arbitration Committee.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


8) "[Wikipedia asks] that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." -- Wikipedia:Banning policy

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:38, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 23:40, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) (But of course, this is meant as "blindly reinstating any edits made".)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (agree with James F.)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (but note generally)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think it's a stupid rule, especially since we have 9 below to deal with those who restore such edits.
Abstain:


9) "If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community." -- Wikipedia:Banning policy

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:38, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (with the caveat that some trolls seem to delight in restoring the work of banned users -- if this is occurring, and the work that is being restored is controversial, I think there may be some benefit in reverting, though usually it's precious little)
  5. Martin 23:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (However, I believe Jwros's note accurately reflects community feeling on that specific point, and the written policy in question likely needs to be tweaked to reflect that)
  6. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) This is a bit weird. I agree with 9.5.
Abstain:

9) "If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, the restorer has taken responsibility for it.

Aye:
  1. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 16:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

10) Wikipedia users are encouraged to responsibly identify problems, discuss them with other users and, if possible without violating Wikipedia policy, solve them.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. The Cunctator 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) This is a restatement of 2.6 above.
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) At the time of the actions by RickK and Guanaco under review, Michael was under a lifetime ban imposed by Jimbo Wales.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

1.1) Despite the ban, Michael, who was 12 at the time of his ban and is now 14, was highly motivated to edit on Wikipedia and continued to attempt to edit articles, most of which were deleted. To do so he created sockpuppet accounts and edited anonymously.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

1.2) Michael's edits were reverted when discovered and the accounts he created and the ip addresses he used were blocked when detected.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

1.3) Because Michael was using AOL, blocking him also blocked other AOL users and readers, reducing the utility of Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

1.4) Guanaco was aware of the problem that blocking Michael also blocked other users and readers, and attempted to find a solution, ultimately trying to solve the problem by allowing the Michael-controlled account User:Mike Garcia to edit.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

1.5) There was a spirited discussion, some of it at the Village Pump which users Guanaco, RickK and Danny participated in. Ultimately the matter was refered to Jimmy Wales who reached an agreement with Michael, Guanaco and Danny which permitted limited use of the Mike Garcia account with Guanaco and Danny playing a mentoring role.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) In the past, Guanaco has unblocked a large number of accounts that had been legitimately blocked by other admins, often for reasons not supported by policy or practice. For example, unblocking admin-name impersonators (user:Maximus-Rex or User:JamesByrd) for the reason that they were not likely to return. (See Wikipedia:Block log)

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (although open to a decent replacement from Martin, as I do acknowledge the circumstances were often less black and white than the above statement)
  5. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Borderline... Guanaco's unblocks weren't dubious in terms of written policy, as that allows admins to block or unblock as they decide how best to enforce a ban. They were unusual (though not completely unprecedented). He should have discussed more (and heeded more the results of that discussion). So yes, Guanaco did step over the line a few times, but this finding seems a little harsh. However, I'll vote to accept if I can't think of a decent replacement. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.5) In the past, Guanaco has unblocked or changed block times on a large number of blocked accounts, some of which were blocked legitimately, some less so. These unblocks were not completely unprecedented, were made in good faith, and were not forbidden by written policy. However, in some cases these unblocks were made with insufficient prior discussion and a lack of awareness of the views of other admins. For example, unblocking admin-name impersonators (user:Maximus-Rex or User:JamesByrd) for the reason that they were not likely to return. (See Wikipedia:Block log)

Aye
  1. Martin 00:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (more like it?)
  2. Fred Bauder 02:05, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 00:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. This wording is fine, too. James F. (talk) 00:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Rickk's initial reverts of Mike Garcia's edits were fully supported by Wikipedia's policy, whereby admins are expected to enforce Jimbo's bans.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (However, it should be permitted, not expected. Some admins may have other things to be doing, some bans may not be worth enforcing, etc).
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I think we are expected to enforce Jimbo's bans, lest the decisions of the site's executive branch have no force at all)
  6. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Rather than deleting certain edits of User:Mike Garcia, Guanaco checked his edits and if correct copyedited them and noted that they were correct, example.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:52, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 00:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) In resinstating Michael's edits, Guanaco took responsibility for them, and therefore it was his responsibility to fact-check them.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 08:02, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Principle, not a fact. Fred Bauder 11:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

5.1 Michael has a history of making edits, especially to articles on popular music, which contain errors.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 01:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5.2 By reinstating Michael's edits Guanaco implicitly assumed responsibility for their accuracy.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 01:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6) However, despite these fact checking efforts, at least two falsities were later discovered in these edits (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Something Bitchin' This Way Comes, "There were two bands called Lock Up...")

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 07:57, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. While true, this fact is not significant, errors occur for a wide variety of reasons. I find Guanaco's explanation on the talk page credible. Fred Bauder 11:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I find it to be significant because it shows (if nothing else) the difficulty of doing proper fact checking. I don't want people reinstating these edits after a casual 30 second google search - I want substantive efforts. →Raul654 01:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. The nature of these errors is not substantially different from any other errors. Whether a falsity is added to Wikipedia based on the edits of a banned user or based on, say, the ramblings of a misinformed person on their own web page is not really relevant. I don't agree to impose unequal burdens of fact-checking for particular kinds of edits. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (per Nohat)
  4. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

7) As per Wikipedia:Banning policy (cited above), in cases where other users claim to have fact checked Michael's edits (Example) then the disputed edits should not have been reverted

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 23:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) Given the relative ease at which misinformation seems to evade fact-checking (even in cases like this were facts should be checked scrupulously) this practice very much worries me. So while I don't think we should disallow it, it should be strongly discouraged.
  3. Fred Bauder 23:52, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (and also per the earlier discussions we had on precisely this point towards the start of Michael's ban)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Principle, not a fact. Fred Bauder 11:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


8) This dispute was exacerbated by Guanaco and RickK not discussing the matter productively. Neither Guanaco nor RickK have engaged in adequate discussion or otherwise taken part in the expected behaviour of disputants who are respected editors. Rather, they choose to make make personal attacks and an inappropriate listing on vandalism in progress.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 00:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I'm a little hesitant to characterize behavior with the final sentence above, but I think the first two sentences very apt.)
  3. Nohat 17:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 →Raul654 17:06, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:39, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) I think they both tried to discuss this matter, but saw the matter from such different perspectives that negotiation was ineffective.
  2. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (per Fred)
Abstain:


Proposed remedies[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Rickk is awarded a WikiThanks for tireless effort in ensuring that the Wikipedia is kept free of vandals.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) ("tireless effort in ensuring that the Wikipedia is kept free of vandals" would be better, perhaps)
Nay:
  1. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) While he is effective in fighting vandals, his abrasive manner removes any desire I might have to award him. Other vandal-fighters manage to be equally effective while not being as rude.
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 16:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) A "barnstar"? Yuck. Don't believe in such things. Also the wording is a bit off, perhaps?
  2. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (ditto The Epopt)
  3. The Cunctator 21:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Nope.

1.5) RickK is awarded a special commendation for tireless effort in ensuring that the Wikipedia is kept free of vandals.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 16:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Isn't it nice to have positive consequences now and then?)
Nay:
  1. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (while I agree that RickK's work has a great positive impact, I think RickK generates more than his fair share of collateral damage)
Abstain:
  1. The Cunctator 21:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) I just can't do this.

2) Guanaco is awarded a WikiThanks for creative problem solving with respect to the problems created by blocking of Michael.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 16:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) I dislike the term "barnstar" strongly.
  2. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. The Cunctator 21:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2.5) Guanaco is awarded a special commendation for creative problem solving with respect to the problems created by blocking of Michael.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 16:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (seems a bit too eager to find reasons to unblock for my taste)
Abstain:
  1. The Cunctator 21:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}


Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

I think the above case is clearly closed, and since the consequences are good, let's delay no further (unless Cunctator feels strongly that his recent proposed principles and findings haven't been given full hearing). I move to close. Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motion withdrawn -- 5 votes needed to approve. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What we have is sufficient - I'll agree to close as soon as we have sufficient votes in favour of giving thanks and dropping it. Martin 16:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should be closed... --Delirium 07:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

This is the fourth aye. mav 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This looks great. I'll add an aye even though I think WikiThanks are dopey. But so is Wikipedia, so maybe I should get off my high horse and start advocating a return to CamelCase links. TheCunctator 15:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RickK_vs._Guanaco/Proposed_decision&oldid=431110431"