Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Proposed decision

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.

Proposed temporary orders

1) The previous temporary order against Chuck F and Reithy is amended to allow edits to pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, where appropriate. This would explicitly allow them the same right to run in this election, if they so choose, as any other user on Wikipedia.

Aye:

1. -- mav 01:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. ----the Epopt 01:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Jwrosenzweig 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 13:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

1. He's just running as a joke. Fred Bauder 04:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

   Reithy yes, Chuck F, I'm not so sure. --mav 04:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. I meant the injuction to say exactly what it currently says - he is to edit nowhere besides the arbcom case and his user/talk page. →Raul654 05:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. As a candidate in said election, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on others running, much less make a ruling as to whether they should be allowed to. James F. (talk) 19:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 01:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Mediation and other forms of dispute resolution are great, and preferred to arbitration where possible.

Aye:

1. Martin 22:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 22:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 14:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

1. Reithy has been banned, mediation can only occur should he return Fred Bauder 13:53, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC).

2) Wikipedia editors are required to avoid personal attacks.

Aye:

1. Fred Bauder 13:53, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 14:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

1. Nay:

1. Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) ChuckF has withdrawn his complaint against Reithy in favour of pursuing prior forms of dispute resolution.

Aye:

1. Martin 22:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 22:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 14:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

2) To ensure the success of these prior forms of dispute resolution, some gentle encouragement from the Arbitration Committee is appropriate.

Aye:

1. Martin 22:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 22:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 14:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

3) During the course of arbitration, Reithy sent contemptuous e-mail messages directly to other wikipedians, including Arbitration Committee members, that contained nothing but derogation such as "loser" and "you sux" [sic]. These messages are violations of the no personal attacks policy.

Aye:

1. --the Epopt 04:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. It wasn't just arbcom members, so I have modified the wording accordingly. →Raul654 05:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
   • Modification accepted -- thanks, Raul654. --the Epopt 05:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Jwrosenzweig 15:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I would like to note that the emails to me were far more offensive and personally upsetting that "you sux".)

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed decision

Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) The case of ChuckF vs Reithy is referred to mediation and other earlier forms of dispute resolution. The existing temporary injunction shall stand until the successful conclusion of mediation, as certified by the mediation committee. The power to vary the existing temporary injunction, and to alter any temporary blocks that arise from it, is delegated to the mediation committee, to use in whatever way they deem appropriate.

Aye:

1. Martin 22:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 22:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

1. Reithy obviously wants to be banned, as indicated by his e-mail messages to individual arbiters. (See fact #3 above). A simple remand to mediation would disappoint both Reithy and those she/he/it is in contempt of. --the Epopt 04:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Jwrosenzweig 15:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Agree with Epopt.)
3. I agree with Epopt - there's no sense in remanding this to mediation. →Raul654 15:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

2) Reithy is banned for thirty days for personal attacks in contempt of the Arbitration Committee, as expressed in the e-mail messages cited in fact #3 above.

Aye:

1. --the Epopt 04:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Jwrosenzweig 14:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Personally, considering what I've been getting, I wouldn't be reluctant to ban for longer than 30 days, but if this is as far as you're willing to go, I suppose it will have to do.)
3. →Raul654 14:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) - still seems a bit light.

Nay:

1. Jwrosenzweig 15:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I am holding out for a higher penalty, if there is any enthusiasm for it. I have not been as badly treated on Wikipedia in a while as I have been by Reithy in the last two days, and I don't think a week ban fits the crime, considering that his emails have apparently gone out to many, many people. Is there any interest in a longer ban? If so, I'll propose one.)

• My initial proposal of a week was based on the mild insults I received. I agree that the messages Jwr recieved warrant a longer ban, so I increased my proposal to thirty days. I would be reluctant to go any longer than that. What do you think? --the Epopt 01:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

• I'm getting pretty badly abused via Wikipedia email by a person claiming to be Reithy. The email I've received has been pretty offensive, and it seems to be escalating -- "Reithy" continues to insist that he desperately wants to be banned permanently, and that he will continue to assault me verbally until I make this happen. Additionally, a request was made via our login system for me to have a new password -- needless to say, it is annoying to have to go log in with a new password and change it back to my old familiar one, especially as the person who did this can continue to request new passwords for my account ad nauseam. I have the IP address that made the request, but don't know if it would be worth our time to track down its origin. Frankly, I'm getting very sick of this whole thing, and I would like us not to dismiss the case against Reithy when his behavior is so flagrantly in violation of community norms. If I now have to recuse myself, I will. Someone please tell me what I should do. Jwrosenzweig 15:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do not recuse yourself. If we allow users being considered by the ArbComm to cause recusals simply by sending e-mails and requesting new passwords, we become vulnerable to a very simple denial-of-service attack. I feel it is important that we take notice of Reithy's behavior and deal with it appropriately. --the Epopt 01:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. →Raul654 02:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Jimbo has just banned Reithy from this site indefinitely (see the block log). Therefore, I think we need to consider either closing this case or else focusing on the other users involved and their conduct. Jwrosenzweig 18:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Also, I presume this means he is hard banned, and that reincarnations can be terminated on sight. →Raul654 19:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • A proclamation to that effect from Jimbo would be nice, but even without one, I think you're right. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

1. I move to close this case as Reithy has been banned due to email attacks. After his ban is over, should problems continue this can be revisited. The evidence developed in this case mostly relates to Reithy, some evidence exists which relates to Chuck F, but it is not fully developed. In any event disputes regarding Chuck F have not passed through the dispute resolution process. Fred Bauder 14:12, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Second the motion! [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 14:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Agree with Fred. James F. (talk) 14:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Fred - →Raul654 19:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
5. Same; it seems the substantial matter is now moot. Delirium 21:30, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)