The proceedings are still technically open I believe, but there's majority votes on enough issues---particularly the issue of banning---for something to be implemented. The findings of fact were a bit more controversial, so basically everyone agrees Paul Vogel needs to be banned, but we don't completely agree on why. But given that we agree on the action part, sitting on our hands arguing about the legalistic justifications doesn't seem all that useful.
The gory details are all on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel]] (where they've been for a while, actually), including links to examples and evidence and whatnot. The summary version follows.
All votes reported as (Yes-No-Abstain). There are 10 arbitrators, so 6 'yes' votes are needed to pass any issue.
Findings of fact --- Passed (7-0-0): Paul Vogel has engaged in a few instances of vandalism. Examples include: [...]. ... The arbitration committee notes that many accusations of "vandalism" levelled against Paul Vogel would more accurately be described as "NPOV violations".
Passed (6-0-0): [Read the page for the text... Summary is that the committee found Paul Vogel's counter-accusations to be unpersuasive, and generally found rather the opposite was true for most of them.]
Almost but not yet passed (5-0-1): Paul Vogel has engaged in a number of personal attacks in violation of the widely accepted no personal attacks policy. ... The arbitration committee notes a handful of personal attacks made against Paul Vogel. ... However, the committee was unable to uncover any evidence (and none was provided) supporting the accusations of slander or repeated attacks alleged by Paul. ...
Nothing decided (2-2-1): [Read the page for the text... Summary is that there's disagreement over whether he was blocked inappropriately by individual sysops and therefore whether he should be held liable for circumventing some of those bans.]
Remedies (both passed 7-0-0) --- 1. Paul Vogel's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are revoked for a period of one year.
2. Wikipedia contributors are encouraged to edit Wikipedia's talk pages to deal with personal attacks, excessive repetition, misleading indentation or signatures, unnecessarily offensive comments, etc, contributed by Paul Vogel. They should delete them, edit them, quarantine them on an appropriate user talk: page, or otherwise deal with them as they judge appropriate.
Comments by me (not the committee) --- A year is a rather long time for a ban, but I don't think anybody really sees how Mr. Vogel can become a productive contributor in the forseeable future, so there was no need to waste everyone's time with a succession of shorter bans that would be the inevitable result. If he surprises us and does indeed have an interest in working more amicably with us, he can request reinstatement, and either Jimbo or the committee can reconsider the matter in light of any new evidence.
As far as enforcement goes: In light of the decision, I've blocked 24.45.99.191, his most common IP address. Even though he's used it consistently for some weeks, it has 'dyn' in the hostname, so I only blocked it for a month, lest it turn out to be dynamic. Reblocking it for an additional month after that expires is a trivial matter if he returns anyway. He's used a number of other addresses, most of them dynamic IPs, and relatively infrequently (and not in the past few days), so I have not blocked those. Since he is now officially banned, any sysop may feel free to ban any reincarnations that pop up, although I'd recommend 24-to-48-hour bans unless you're sure it's a static IP of his.
-Mark
On 05/07/04 10:40, Delirium wrote:
- Paul Vogel's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are revoked for a
period of one year. As far as enforcement goes: In light of the decision, I've blocked 24.45.99.191, his most common IP address. Even though he's used it consistently for some weeks, it has 'dyn' in the hostname, so I only blocked it for a month, lest it turn out to be dynamic. Reblocking it for an additional month after that expires is a trivial matter if he returns anyway. He's used a number of other addresses, most of them dynamic IPs, and relatively infrequently (and not in the past few days), so I have not blocked those. Since he is now officially banned, any sysop may feel free to ban any reincarnations that pop up, although I'd recommend 24-to-48-hour bans unless you're sure it's a static IP of his.
Where is the best place to report violations? Here, a given page, IRC? i.e., how to get a 48-hour ban in less than 12 hours?
- d.
On May 7, 2004, at 6:40 AM, Delirium wrote:
Passed (7-0-0): Passed (6-0-0): Almost but not yet passed (5-0-1): Nothing decided (2-2-1): Remedies (both passed 7-0-0)
Point of procedural inquiry:
What does it mean if the three numbers don't add up to 10? Are the extras implicit abstentions (non-responses), and the third number only the explicit?
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
7-0-0 7 voted for, no one voted against, no one proposed a third alternative, 3 didn't vote at all.
Fred
From: Peter Jaros rjaros@shaysnet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:27:17 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel banned for a year
On May 7, 2004, at 6:40 AM, Delirium wrote:
Passed (7-0-0): Passed (6-0-0): Almost but not yet passed (5-0-1): Nothing decided (2-2-1): Remedies (both passed 7-0-0)
Point of procedural inquiry:
What does it mean if the three numbers don't add up to 10? Are the extras implicit abstentions (non-responses), and the third number only the explicit?
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l