From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Motion to resume arbitration 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Template 4.1.2 Template 4.1.3 Template 4.1.4 Template 4.1.5 Template 4.1.6 Template 4.1.7 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 E104221 4.2.2 Undiscussed block reversals by AzaToth 4.2.3 Template 4.2.4 Template 4.2.5 Template 4.2.6 Template 4.2.7 Template 4.2.8 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Template 4.3.2 Template 4.3.3 Template 4.3.4 Template 4.3.5 Template 4.3.6 Template 4.3.7 Template 4.3.8 Template 4.3.9 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Template 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion to resume arbitration

1) Due to the closure of community enforceable mediation (see this diff, I hereby motion for the arbitration to proceed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motioned as the case clerk. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] E104221

1) E104421 is a persistent edit warrior with a long history of blocks [1], especially as a result of a protracted personal conflict with Tajik. He and Tajik were eventually placed on a revert parole [2] by community acclamation, which resulted in further blocks for both violations and gaming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

E104421 was eventually blocked after gaming the revert parole by repeatedly making sterile reverts day after day, with non-explanatory edit summaries such as WP:1RR [3] [4] [5] [6] and be civil! [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] even though he was staying within the parole's letter. Dmcdevit·t 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I want to clarify the allegations by Dmcdevit. Firstly, i used the statement "be civil" just because the removal of cited content without any discussion. If you check the discussion page of the article Xionites, you'll see more clearly Talk:Xionites. Secondly, the accusation that "E104421 is a persistent edit warrior" is unfair, the better expression would be "E104421 and Tajik are unable to edit together". I contributed many wikipedia articles with scholarly references but it's quite worrying to see them removed without any discussion. For this reason, i wrote "be civil" in the edit summary. Please also note that E104421 and Tajik are the only contributors to the Xionites article [12] since 5 December 2006.

After the revert parole, i feel quite upset. I hesitate to edit whenever i see Tajik's name in any article's history. Dmcdevit is also responsible for that cause he's watching my every movement in order to find something to accuse me. A very small conflict with Tajik related with the usage of the word "claim" [13] which is in the list of WP:WTA was used as an evidence to block us indefinitely. I wrote WP:1RR just for this hesitation not for gaming. One of the basic Wikipedia motives is WP:BOLD, stated as simply "If an article's broken, fix it". Dmcdevit's behavior is just lowering my motivation towards editing Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Dmcdevit considers the case as his own problem. The problem is the lack of conversation between Tajik and me. For this reason, the CEM proposal by AzaToth was a wonderful chance. Unfortunately, Tajik stated that he'll be off till 12 May[14], and we could not start the mediation immediately. After the sockpuppetry case of Tajik, the CEM was closed and we lost that chance. I'm quite worried for that. E104421 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can we have your assurance that you won't return to edit-warring now that Tajik is gone? Kirill Lokshin 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I promise that i shall take the WP:ROWN as a principle. I am very happy with it. E104421 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Please note that i did some corrections to my previous statement above, i'm having problems with my internet connection).

Comment by others:

[edit] Undiscussed block reversals by AzaToth

2) On March 27 and March 30, administrator User:AzaToth reversed both standing blocks on E104421 and Tajik for edit warring [15] [16] without either discussing the matter with the blocking administrator or having a community discussion, and did not notify either after the fact. One week later when the two resumed edit warring and were both reblocked, AzaToth again immediately unblocked without any discussion [17] [18], this time despite the fact that another administrator had independently reviewed and declined unblocking E104421 [19]. In all four unblocks, AzaToth made no attempt a discussion before overturning previously uncontested blocks. See the block logs [20] [21]. When asked about the matter, he remained unresponsive, giving a single line reply and no further replies when asked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To this day, those two sentences on his talk page when I asked him are the extent of AzaToth's explanation to the community. He even ignored my response despite the fact that the issue I was concerned about was his own uncommunicativeness. He never actually addressed my points about the poor judgment of the unblocks, or gave a reasoning. Dmcdevit·t 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• AzaToth was trying to help us to solve our conflicts on the articles of controversy. He was acting objectively and motivating us towards mediation/dispute resolution,the CEM case [22]. On the other hand, Dmcdevit is just looking for further blocks. The problems between Tajik and E104421 were turned out to be the problems of Dmcdevit. AzaToth obviously does not know much on the history of conflicts but just wanted to help. I personally vouch that he acted in good faith. E104421 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AzaToth did make a brief statement when this case was brought, however. See here. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call an arbitration statement discussion (lack of discussion, even after I broached the topic, was the point I was trying to make). Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Had the mediation succeeded, this arbitration case would have been dropped and AzaToth's approach to the matter would not even be a topic of discussion. The fact that mediation failed (indeed, never began) is no fault of AzaToth's. Even assuming for the sake of argument that AzaToth erred in his handling of this matter, which is not necessarily clear, there is no allegation that it is anything other than an isolated incident. I see no reason to renew discussion of the issue at the ArbCom level, some two months after the fact. I also note that no notice has been given to AzaToth that the case has been revived and his conduct is under discussion (a circumstance I have now remedied). Newyorkbrad 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it no fault if his? Perhaps if he'd held a community decision, someone could have told him how obvious it was to those acquainted with the situation that mediation would fail. I'm not quite sure if all four unblocks separated by a week, and the subsequent nonresponsive attitude qualifies as a single incident, but I'm mystified as to how overturning four blocks, all uncontested (some reviewed and endorsed) without any prior discussion, or notification afterwards, or responding to discussion afterwards about it, is "not necessarily clear." Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking without greater discussion may not be model administrator behavior, and it's not how I would have approached the situation, but we had another very senior and respected administrator accept the matter for mediation and six arbitrators vote to suspend the case to give the mediation a chance, so unblocking to allow mediation wasn't exactly a crazed thing to do. AzaToth can speak for himself, but I suggest he would say that the anticipated mediation would be the community discussion. In any event, in his statement in this case he has expressed regret for not having notified you and the noticeboard at the time, so what exactly is it that you want ArbCom to do now? But there probably is not much point to continuing this thread, as the case seems to be in the process of being resolved on other grounds. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: