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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Suggestion for checkuser

1) Per the evidence presented by Sjakkale, a checkuser to see if the SPA's match any established editor would be in order. In addition, there are other allegations of puppetry as contained in the parties' opening statements. It would probably be good to have all the suspicions evaluated so the results can be taken into account if a problem is found, or otherwise some suspicions can be dissipated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by the case clerk based on the statements and evidence to date. Newyorkbrad 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Somewhat crude, as the struggle here doesn't appear to have a coherent ideology behind it. Kirill 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute tags

2) It is inappropriate to add frivolous dispute tags to an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could be more detailed. Kirill 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

3) Wikipedia is a project to build a neutral encyclopedia. Use of it as a platform for advocacy of any sort is prohibited. Editors that consistently engage in advocacy rather than contributing to the encyclopedia may be banned from participating in the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably more useful; wording could use some work. Kirill 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I like the idea, which refines the first proposal. This could apply to a lot of disputes. And although the final sentence is strong it probably needs to be said. Maybe I'll try to wrap my head around this too. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

4) There may be higher goals in life than creating a nonprofit encyclopedia, but that is what Wikipedia is. People who consistently put other priorities ahead of that basic function may face sanctions up to and including sitebans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Why is "nonprofit" emphasized here rather than "neutral"? Very few people tend to have issues with the former, and very many—notably, those engaged in advocacy—with the latter. Kirill 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. An attempt to cover advocacy in more general terms. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; adjust as you see fit. The aim is a respectful nod for people's own priorities while expressing that Wikipedia has a reasonable expectation that they accommodate encyclopedic standards here. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

5) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. Users that consistently engage in such activities may face sanctions up to and including total bans from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More verbose, pulling a few different threads together. Kirill 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. Users whose behavior is consistently inappropriate may face sanctions up to and including total bans from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nice and general. Kirill 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User Tezza1 is disruptive

1) Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and related sockpuppet accounts) is a disruptive editor on the Railpage Australia article and related pages. See evidence at [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppetry, role accounts Thin Arthur/Dbromage/Null Device in the Railpage Article

2) My complaint (Tezza1) which resulted in this arbitration requires investigation and a ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. Investigators have left it to you - the arbitrators to make a ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Null Device

3) Is a single purpose account who has edited heavily the Railpage article [2], has not been truthful about their identity [3] to Administrator Durova being linked with user and suspected sock puppeteer [4]. This single purpose account has taken action on numerous occasions against editor Tezza1 [5] [6] without disclosing their suspected COI .

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:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

Proposed enforcement

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:

Analysis of evidence

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: