Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Proposed decision

message: I normally believe in final chances. But I also believe that there are some people who don't deserve a final chance - namely those people who have refused to even consider any of the other chances they have been offered. KDRGibby has not only rejected every chance he has been offered, but he also refused to participate in the arbitration process at all, insulted the arbitration committee and everyone else he dislikes on wikipedia, and continued to edit the same way as before, completely unabated. There is no reason to believe that he will even read the ArbCom's decision in his case, let alone try to reform himself because of it. As such, I believe the ArbCom needs to send a strong message to KDRGibby that his behavior will not be tolerated. I urge you to vote in favor of a ban; perhaps you are uncomfortable with the one year ban, but a ban for some period of time - perhaps six months - is, in my view, clearly necessary. -- Nikodemos 06:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision provides for where KDRGibby doesn't follow the decision.  If he does not, he gets blocked.  Before long, he is blocked for a year.  I hope he understands this.  If he reforms, great, all fine and good.  If he doesn't, he goes.  This is a no-risk strategy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mattley. I am of the opinion that one's pattern of editing matters more than one's civility. One may be perfectly civil while engaging in edit wars and refusing to cooperate with other editors. If KDRGibby is not banned, the ArbCom will be sending him a message that all he has to do is tone down the blatant insults and he will be left alone to edit just like before. A ban, on the other hand, would send a strong message that he has to reform his behaviour, not just his language. -- Nikodemos 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm not very familiar with arbitration procedure, but I was wondering if it might be a good idea to also vote on remedies such as a ban from editing politics-related articles and a revert limitation. -- Nikodemos 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good idea.  The admin approach seems to be more on punishing, rather than stopping the problem. It is my opinion that KDRGibby has a hard time seeing things from others points of view (when the topic is related to political economics).  People who understand the answer to the universe tend to look at contrasting views like they are from the moon.  And the moon can be pretty damn weird.  The personal attacks are probabaly more a result of this frustration than any malevolent attempt to hurt other editors.--Colle||Talk-- 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics-related ban and revert limitation? 

message: Could we get this in place soon, please? He's continuing in his bad behaviour; I just blocked him for repeated personal attacks in his edit summaries. It's pretty much a waste of time to put him on any sort of parole -- he knows full well he's under close scrutiny, and continues the same nasty ways. If the max period is one year after five blocks, ok, but it's a foregone conclusion the more drastic remedy will be applied; he's been given plenty of chances. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The probations and paroles are in its place. If he continues unchanged, he will meet a yearlong ban nonetheless, so these are the next step down. Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, his userpage is in his userspace afterall. Remove away. Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban vs. parole, continuing personal attacks