Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFA withdrawn on 3 September 2005Homey 22:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened 16:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or 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 or against and abstentions 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. See also /Evidence and /Workshop

For this case, 5 arbitrators are recused/inactive (Fennec, Sannse, David Gerard, Mindspillage, Kelly Martin), meaning that 4 votes is a majority.

Proposed temporary orders[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Temporary ban of ArmchairVexillologistDon[edit]

1) ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs) is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page other than his or her user page and pages relating to this arbitration pending a decision in this matter. This ban is based upon posting of personal information regarding User:AndyL, see [1] and following material on Talk:Red_Ensign.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. What AVD did was certainly intended to intimidate. However, AndyL's edit-warring and POV-pushing need to be considered as well. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 17:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. James F. (talk) 22:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Not really necessary. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Ban of Disputants[edit]

2) ArmchairVexillologistDon and AndyL are banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly. Their user pages and pages relating to this Arbitration are explicitly exempt from this ban.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 17:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:57, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (i'm foggy under cold medicine right now, but as the decision seems close to passage, I thought I'd vote nay because I need till tomorrow to think about this and I hope no action is taken until then. The only evidence I've yet seen was of Don revealing Andy's identity without Andy's permission, and so I don't understand why Andy would be banned at all, but maybe there is something new I haven't seen. Either way, if you all wouldn't mind waiting to put anything into effect until tomorrow (PST) I would appreciate it. Thanks)
  2. James F. (talk) 21:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [was Aye] Overly broad on AndyL.
  3. Agree with James F. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.1) The injunction passed above in 2) is narrowed such that ArmchairVexillologistDon and AndyL are banned from the editing of only the Wikipedia pages Red Ensign, Canadian Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba, and Flag of Ontario, and their Talk pages.

Aye:
  1. After looking into the behavior of both parties, I concur with AndyL: the injunction is unnecessarily broad. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 14:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
# Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (see 2.3)
  1. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2.3
Abstain:
  1. Not sure if this is necessary. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

2.2) ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly. His user pages, and pages relating to this Arbitration, are explicitly exempt from this ban. AndyL is banned from the editing of the Wikipedia pages Red Ensign, Canadian Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba, and Flag of Ontario, and their related talk pages.

Aye:
  1. Unnecessarily broad on AndyL, perhaps, but not so much on ArmchairVexillologistDon, IMO. James F. (talk) 15:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (see 2.3)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2.3
Abstain:
  1. Not sure if this is necessary. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Limited ban on ArmchairVexillologistDon[edit]

2.3) ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:23, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Given that no evidence has been introduced against AndyL -- and I haven't come across any on my own as yet -- I don't feel any temp ban can be issued against him. I feel that the evidence produced against AVD, however, is enough to bar him in this way. One question -- is a cease and desist order to AVD stopping any further revelation about AndyL's real-life identity necessary, or should it be assumed by all parties that one is in effect?)
  3. mav 06:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure if this is necessary. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Attempts to intimidate are forms of personal attack, which are not allowed.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't think this is quite strong enough - they're a particularly nasty form of attack, and one that's much worse than, say, calling someone a troll.
  6. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Nasty stuff.
  7. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

AndyL's Full Name[edit]

1) On or shortly before 12 December 2004, AndyL sent an e-mail message to ArmchairVexillologistDon (AVD) that revealed AndyL's name.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) On 12 December 2004, AVD posted on the Talk:Red Ensign page links to the pipermail archive of messages from the Wikipedia mailing list. In those messages, Paul Vogel addresses AndyL by his full name.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Messages sent to the Wikipedia mailing list are publicly available, both when initially sent and after being archived. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for the content of those messages.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Not withstanding fact #3, a reasonable person could conclude that AVD's intent in posting the links to the archived Wikipedia mailing list messages was to intimidate AndyL.

Aye:
  1. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Template[edit]

0) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed decision[edit]

Remedies[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Personal attack parole[edit]

1) AVD is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including two months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week, and the parole shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd also like this to explicitly address the harrassment issue, and make clear that if it occurs again, it will not be looked upon lightly.
  4. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) A year is right.
Nay:
  1. Too short. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

1.1) AVD is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week, and the parole shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. Two months too short. Ambi 03:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:46, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion[edit]

2) AVD is required to discuss all reverts and removals to vexillology, fascism, Canada, Red Ensign, Canadian Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario on the relavant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Particularly with a penalty for violation
  4. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
  1. Ambi 03:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Prefer 2.1.
Abstain:

Ban on editing some articles[edit]

2.1) ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from editing vexillology, fascism, Canada, Red Ensign, Canadian Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba, Flag of Ontario, and their related talk pages. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including one week.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 16:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Discussion option
  2. We should encourage discussion. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer the discussion aspect. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:21, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)


Good behaviour[edit]

3) If AVD can demonstrate good skill in discussion and behaviour relatively free of personal attacks, he may apply to the Arbcom to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Of course.
  5. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
Abstain:

One year ban[edit]

ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 23:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Reversion violations[edit]

1) Should AVD revert Red Ensign or a related article or remove material without discussion, an administrator may block him for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. ArmchairVexillologistDon resigned from Wikipedia on January 3, 2005 and has not edited since Fred Bauder 12:02, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. We should leave the option to re-open this if he returns, however. Ambi 12:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Subject to reactivation if AVD returns. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:42, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  4. It's been two weeks. Subject to reactivation on his return - David Gerard 18:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. This case appears to be settled so far as the two users are concerned. Fred Bauder 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. →Raul654 03:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, I suppose so. James F. (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 11:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third motion to close[edit]

Four net Aye votes needed to close case

  1. Move to close. Since this case was opened the same day that Jimbo appointed Mindspillage and Karynn, we can assume that they are auto-recused. As such, only 4 votes are required to pass the one-year ban above. ➥the Epopt 22:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 'Concur with Epopt. →Raul654 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close Fred Bauder 13:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision&oldid=868950171"