Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WikiUser/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
resolution of all legal claims

If, after being banned for a year, nothing further has happened with respect to WikiUser's threat to sue, is that considered "resolution"? In other words, if he hasn't actually sued, or really done anything about it (as with most such threats, it seems like hollow blustering), but he hasn't recanted the threat either.

Basically, I can understand how this ban works if it means "you have a one-year ban for making legal threats, and the timer restarts anytime you make a similar threat or take any legal action, whether you do it on Wikipedia or elsewhere". If it means an indefinite ban, to be reduced to one year if the threats are withdrawn, I'm a little more uncomfortable with it, partly because it reminds me of DemandApology. --Michael Snow 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your concern here and agree - This needs further consideration I think -- sannse (talk) 22:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the equivalence. All we are proposing is that as long as WikilUser is threatening (to try) to harm Wikipedia or any Wikipedian, he is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. One of the most persuasive (to me) arguments against demanding apologies is that a demanded apology is likely to be insincere. There is no such thing as an insincere withdrawal of legal threats: either someone has been summoned to answer a claim of tort or he hasn't. ➥the Epopt 23:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At the moment we are proposing that he is not allowed to edit for a year after he withdraws any threats (or for a year if he says nothing more on the issue). -- sannse (talk) 18:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So does that mean that if in one year, the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been served papers in formal legal proceedings involving WikiUser, the Arbitration Committee will consider the threat withdrawn? Simply having threatened to sue is not a summons. You say "is threatening" as if the action is ongoing; is it considered ongoing until there is an action negating the threat, or does inaction suffice? --Michael Snow 01:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After a year, if no legal action is instituted, I would think that would be the end of it. Fred Bauder 01:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

To explain the reasons for my suggested changes publicly - I feel very strongly that our first response to a legal threat (however absurd) should not be to enact a punitive ban. A ban for legal threats should only be a protective withdrawal, not a punishment.
If nothing happens in the next year we presume any action has been dropped. But equally important, if the threats are withdrawn that should be that (unless someone causes disruption by repeatedly making and withdrawing threats - which is a different matter).
In this particular case, the voting seems likely to result in a year ban anyway - so withdrawal of the threats would make no difference under my proposed change. But as written at the moment, a withdrawal of threats would actually increase the ban (to a year from that point, rather that a year in total). -- sannse (talk) 18:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, after a lot of discussion, we've now got a suggested form that I'm happy with and I think will work for others -- sannse (talk) 23:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further disruption, 25 February[edit]

Please be aware of todays set of vandalism and activities by WikiUser on his IP address [1], though I note that the decision will probably not be affected in any way. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yep - we've seen thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And now using (talk · contributions), which has also been blocked for 24 hours. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see that he's also hit Simple English again [2]. -- ChrisO 00:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, he blanked a few pages (checked as soon as I saw he was active again). I've blocked his IP address there. -- Netoholic @ 03:10, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)