This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision
Administrators
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Thoughts. Kirill 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Decorum
2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Thoughts. Kirill 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Who's who
3) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behaviour are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behaviour of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Thoughts. Kirill 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Don't think this one is needed as it related to BurntsauceJB196 meatpuppetry while this relates to checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry. The socks themselves acted in a way that didn't require a connection to be made to find they were acting disruptive and incivil on purpose. –– Lid(Talk) 09:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry
4) The use of sockpuppets is generally discouraged, unless there is a valid reason for having them.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Eyrian has used abusive sockpuppets
- 1) Eyrian has confessed to using an abusive sockpuppet.
- 1.1) Eyrian has confessed to using an abusive sockpuppet. Additionally, CheckUser evidence confirmed this, and revealed two other sockpuppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed 1 and 1.1 above. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- Although the use of sockpuppets is a serious matter, I think it's even more important here that he admitted one was his only after an elaborate denial and then left without addressing any of the questions raised by that behavior. That raises far more serious issues of trust. DurovaCharge! 09:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Elaborate denial"? When was this? (I'm only somewhat familiar with this situation). Picaroon (t) 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [1][2][3], followed by an admission.[4]. A fuller version is in Wikidemo's evidence. DurovaCharge! 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could tweak the wording and/or split this up into two parts (confession of sockpuppetry & abusiveness/disruptiveness of sockpuppetry)? At first reading, I took this to mean "Eyrian has confessed to abusive sockpuppetry." — xDanielx T/C\R 09:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Eyrian desysopped
1) For the use of an abusive sockpuppet, Eyrian is desysopped. He may reapply for administrative rights at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
- 1.1) For the use of an abusive sockpuppet, Eyrian is desysopped. Because Eyrian has not responded to the case against him, he must contact the Arbitration Committee before reapplying for administrative rights.
- 1.2) For the use of an abusive sockpuppet, Eyrian is desysopped. Due to the circumstances involving this case, he may not reapply for administrative rights.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed 1, 1.1, and 1.2, since this is most likely going to be an outcome of this case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- I don't care for 1.1 or 1.2. If there is consensus (as demonstrated by RfA) that a person can be trusted to benefit the encyclopedia by having the mop, they should get it back. While on exceptional cases this principle may be violated (e.g. I can't comment on the propriety of the Alkivar decision without viewing the private evidence), it should generally be respected. I don't think it is a good idea for the Committee to routinely assert its superiority over the "usual means" of determining if someone is ready for readminship. Eluchil404 06:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.1 and 1.2 resemble the remedies from the Alkivar case. Although I'm not privy to the Committee's deliberations, I did submit private evidence there and I'll venture a guess that the special desysopping done in that case probably happened because that evidence really needed to remain private. So far, no similar need really exists in this case. Eyrian's own actions after I indeffed the sock overshadow my work, and unless further evidence changes that I think the community can weigh those actions on their own merits. DurovaCharge! 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some precedent for requiring an editor to advise the Arbitration Committee before starting a new RfA in the Henrygb case, although that cases included truly egregious conduct such as double-!voting. Newyorkbrad 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with 1, and with durova that the private evidence doesn't seem to be as important in this case. --Rocksanddirt 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eyrian is restricted to one account
2) Eyrian is restricted to one account. All other accounts shall be blocked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: