Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Proposed decision

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, posting from another account. 66.60.159.190 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 not 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 neght 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)