Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Proposed decision

message: #Could this ban exclude his userpage, on the condition that any templates deemed required (indefblock, restricted editing, et al) remain? This would also include WP:NPA, WP:NOT a soapbox to some extent, et al.
#Are/Could the talk pages of his supporters/advocates/etc (by opt-in) be considered related to this arbitration or otherwise be excluded from this ban? To make it explictly clear: This exception would not include SlimVirgin and other editors he has been in conflict with.
--Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban of Blu Aardvark from editing pages.

message: I would like to comment on arbitrator Dmcdevit's note that his first action will be to propose "an injunction to ensure that Blu Aardvark stays banned until the case is concluded and we decide otherwise".  I would like to respectfully disagree that such an injunction is appropriate, and in fact suggest that an opposite injunction would be a better idea.
In real-life common law, one condition for granting of a preliminary injunction is the likelihood of irreparable harm to the requesting party.  Why?  Because if one party will be subject to irreparable harm by the lack of injunction, and the other will not be subject to irreparable harm by the granting of the injunction, then the reparable harm is preferable to the irreperable.  If the reparable harm turned out to be unjustified, that can be repaired once the full trial concludes that fact; if the opposite turns out to be true, no repair is possible.
I'm not suggesting that the ArbCom should as a matter of course follow common-law standards, only bringing this up to illustrate the merits of the injunction itself.  Specifically: to my knowledge, the ArbCom has very rarely if ever permanently banned anyone from contributing to Wikipedia.  For a severe first case, one year is a typical ban length.  So consider.  If the ArbCom concludes, one or two months from now, that Blu Aardvark didn't deserve to be banned after all, and he was kept banned by preliminary injunction, he will have lost those one or two months of Wikipedia editing forever, and we will have lost them as well (since if the ArbCom decides to unban him, his edits presumably were constructive).
But on the other hand, what about the opposite case?  If Blu Aardvark were unbanned by injunction (obviously putting him under temporary probation of some sort, perhaps mentorship, so that if he acts up he isn't immune to blocks but on the other hand also can't be blocked for disproportionate periods by admins based mainly on past or off-site actions), and at the end of the case the ArbCom decided that he did need to be banned for a year after all, what would happen?  Why, he would be banned for a year.  The one or two months he spent editing (harmfully, one presumes, if the case turned out that way) would not harm Wikipedia overall, since they would just be transferred to an earlier period.  Or to put it another way, the harm caused by his extra one or two months here would be reparable by blocking him for an additional one or two months.
Furthermore, if Blu Aardvark is present on Wikipedia during the case, he will be able to first of all defend himself (which is always a desirable thing), and second of all any claims of reform could be judged over the course of the case.  This means, in my view, that minimal harm could come from Blu Aardvark's being unbanned for the duration of the case, compared to the opposite.  This is all provided one accepts that any users' decisions to leave Wikipedia are their own, and doesn't consider them as consequences of such tenuously-related decisions as unbanning another user entirely; of course, this is an important proviso, but I do firmly believe that any contrary one invites exploitation and misconduct, whether fully intentional or less-than-conscious.
And to address one final point: if the ArbCom decides to pass such an injunction, it should be stressed that this is not an endorsement of Linuxbeak's actions, and is a purely provisional measure crafted a) to permit Blu Aardvark a fair chance to participate in a formal case against him and b) with the understanding that he may be rebanned after a period of time based solely on past actions even if he acts as a model Wikipedian in the interim.  As such, it is an entirely different proposition from Linuxbeak's unilateral unblocking, which had different goals, and this injunction would not be inconsistent with a final decision censuring Linuxbeak for his actions. 
Respectfully, Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further outside statement by Simetrical, regarding injunctions

message: This confused me when I read it.  It should be "A different administrator reversed each of the three unblocks." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A different administrator reversed all three unblocks." 

message: :2) Blu Aardvark has created many abusive sockpuppets for block evasion and harassment, and engaged in vandalism of Wikipedia and many other Wikimedia projects.
Did he vandalize anything other than commons, meta, and here? I call three "a few" not "many." Kotepho 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just a mistake in wording. Fred Bauder 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See this change. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding of Fact 2 - How many is "many"? 

message: This project page has recently been vandalized several times over the course of a few hours.  I've semiprotected it.  Only arbitrators need to edit it anyway, and if you spot something that needs to be changed note it here and either an unrecused arbitrator or an uninvolved administrator editor or a clerk will perform any changes necessary. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalism

message: :Enforced by block
:1) For violations of his parole or Probation, using username or account, Blu Aardvark may be blocked for a short time, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Log of blocks and bans.
"using username or account"?  tautological.  "using any username or IP address" maybe? Kotepho 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enforcement wording

message: I wrote Tony the following message enquiring about the nature of majority when there is an abstention among the non-recused active Arbitrators. His reply seems reasonable, but I thought I'd copy it here just in case. -Splash - tk 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration cases normally go for a "hard" majority, so we'd count the mentorship motion as having passed only if it had (in this case) six or more supporting votes.  However it may be a good idea to ask for clarification on the talk page of the proposed decision.  --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So an abstention is, in other words, identical to an oppose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority for mentorship?