Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Unblock Ericsaindon2

1) Ericsaindon2 is currently under a 1-month block. The block shall be lifted, with ES limited to editing pages in this arbitration. He is banned from editing articles concerning places in Orange County, California (OC) until the completion of the arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: Will Beback With ES blocked it seems unfair to continue, and he keeps using socks anyway. Either we should put the case on hold or we should allow ES to respond. Using various accounts he has been making major changes to OC articles which grow increasingly difficult to track and mark for review. -Will Beback 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I support BlankVerse's amendment. -Will Beback 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I agree that it is unfair that ES is currently blocked from editing his RFAr pages (although editing evidence on the RFAr page presented by an arbitrator was a rather egregious act). On the other hand, I think that while he should be allowed to edit his RFAr pages, he should be banned from editing any article on a Southern California topic until this RFAr has been decided.
I would like to assume good faith and say that he should, however, be allowed to correct and clarify any of the edits he has done already (see my correspondence with him on the problems with his edits to the Rossmoor, California and Santa Ana Heights, California articles), but ES has already abused any of the leeway that he has been given by other editors in the past, so I would instead say that he should only be allowed to edit those articles through the assistance of a mentor or mediator. BlankVerse 11:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with BlankVerse's analysis. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough Punishment?

1) I have served a month block as punishment, and I think that this case should be dismissed for I have served my time. Any further time would be ridiculous for simply engaging in a conflict equally with another editor on Wikipedia, which is something that happens all the time (but not everyone goes so far as to try to ban their opponent like user:Coolcaesar so that they will win the arguement) which this user has selfishly has done here (considering he is willing to destroy and ruin the reputation and Wikipedia carrer of another just because he wants everything to go his way). Comments?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Since the editor has never stopped editing I don't see how he can be considered to have "served" his time. On the contrary, he has flagrantly violated his temporary ban again and again, despite polite reminders and IP blocks. -Will Beback 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Note that the edit above was made by 69.227.160.24 (talk · contribs) on 2 Aug 2006, exactly two weeks after the start of the one-month block. Also note that on that same day, the IP edited Orange Hills, Orange, California, Tustin Foothills, California, and Southern California ZIP Codes. Until Eric quits ignoring and evading the editing ban, there has been no punishment. BlankVerse 09:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with this analysis. Eric did not cooperate with the ban in good faith, and has failed to demonstrate any remorse or understanding that his past behavior was improper or other signs of rehabilitation. For one thing, he has never said that he went to downtown Anaheim to pull hardcopy sources from the city library or the city archives to support his position, which I have repeatedly recommended. That one act alone would strongly boost his credibility with everyone (especially myself), but he has failed to do it. In his most recent edits to Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, he claims that he owns a house in Anaheim Hills, which he also claims has some of the wealthiest households and largest houses on the West Coast. Yet somehow he can't afford to drive down the hill or take a bus to downtown Anaheim. Or maybe he just doesn't want to. In contrast, when my early edits to Roger J. Traynor were challenged (see Talk:Roger J. Traynor), I made a point of writing down a few citations the next time I visited the public law library. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coolcaesar vs. Ericsaindon2

1)I think that user:Coolcaesar should also be tried and punished for he conducted much worse civil misdeeds than I have committed, which is putting it lightly on his part. I want this case with Coolcaesar to be merged, and not eliminated, for he is much more guilty of much larger offenses than the accusations against me (a few legitamate reverts vs. verbal abuse) it is hardly comparable. I do not want his case to be dismissed, but rather worked the same as in this case. Comments?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
ES has attempted to merge his case against Coolcaesar despite it having been rejected by the ArbCom. He has added the RfAr wholesale to the evidence page, and has edit warred over renaming the case in the Open Tasks template. Jimbo Wales himself reviewed the complaint against CC, at ES's request, and found no cause for action. -Will Beback 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have you know that all the arbitrators said reject and merge, so that is what is being done. Do not manipulate the words of the arbitrators. Ericsaindon2 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you're the one manipulating their words. Furthermore, I've been careful to never violate the three-revert rule or to engage in edit warring. When it looks like an edit war is developing, and I can't engage the opponent in a reasonable discussion, I back off and go get the admins' attention on the Village pump. And when I really don't have a verifiable, reliable source or the time to look one up, I say so and I back off. In contrast, you've failed to concede that you have no sources for your positions, and in turn, you keep getting blocked for violating 3RR. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

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] No original research

1) Wikipedia:No original research forbids introduction of information, however well-founded, true and accurate, which results from a user's own analysis of a subject. Only information which can be verified as having been published in a reliable source can be included in a Wikipedia article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I concur with this. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Sockpuppets and meatpuppets

2) Whether or not confirmed by checkuser, a set of users who edit in the same manner will be considered one user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I concur with this. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Disruptive users may be banned

3) A user who disrupts an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I concur. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Naming convention for places

4) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Note that more detailed guidelines are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United States. However that guideline does not presently cover neighborhoods of cities, though a de facto standard is widely used. While the article naming issue was a bone of contention about which reasonable editors may differ, the problem at hand is with how ES behaved overall. -Will Beback 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Will Beback's analysis. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a point I was trying to make all along...Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is not most common, but Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California is more common. Will and Coolcaesar were totally wrong and misleading on their slandered straw poll they created about this issue. Good point here.-Ericsaindon2 07:41, 4 August 2006
Comment by others:

[edit] Personal Attacks

1) Personal Attacks are clearly against the rules of the Wikipedia community, as committed by user:Coolcaesar for his own personal gain.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This user needs to be punished for his actions like I was punished for mine, plain and simple... -Ericsaindon2 07:42, 4 August 2006
Ericsaindon2's well-documented tendency to engage in self-serving distortions of the truth speaks for itself. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Ericsaindon2

1) Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who is confirmed by checkuser to also edit as OC31113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and a large number of sockpuppets and anonymous ips (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence#Ericsaindon2_has_been_using_sockpuppets) is alleged to have engaged in tendentious editing of articles which relate to Anaheim Hills.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
It is beyond me how so many unproved sockpuppets have surfaced. I see 20 unproved sockpuppets that are just accusations, and NOT ONE of them has ever been proved! -Ericsaindon2 07:44, 4 August 2006
First of all, you have a proven tendency to use sockpuppets. Second, a reasonable person can infer that you are behind the other suspected sockpuppets because (1) their edits are all in your flawed writing style and (2) the edits are all similar to the ones that have come from your known accounts. No Wikipedia editor with an established track record of acting in good faith has voiced support for your positions, especially the idea that Anaheim Hills ought to be treated like a city. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Anaheim Hills

2) Anaheim Hills is a community in California located within Anaheim, California. Googling for "Anaheim Hills" returns about 1,270,000 hits. Searches for "Anaheim Hills" are sufficient that they register at Google Trends [1], but are much less than searches for "Anaheim" alone [2]. Some searches for "Anaheim Hills anaheim california" register [3].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
It appears to be more common at Anaheim Hills, California than anything according to your evidence...very interesing, what this whole debate was about-Ericsaindon2 07:45, 4 August 2006
Comment by others:

[edit] Communities

3) There are a number of notable communities or neighborhoods, new and old, which are commonly known by names which do not comport with the services offered by the United States Postal Service or with official city boundaries or designations. In addition to Anaheim Hills, Manhattan, Bonanza, Colorado, and the Baca Grande are examples of such common usage.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Manhattan is a borough of New York City, with official boundaries, political entities, and an extensive legal existence. Bonanza, Colorado is an unincorporated town recognized by the Census Bureau as having boundaries. We have many articles on such places. Baca Grande, is apparently a homeowners association covering a development in an unincorporated community.[4] It bears some relation to Anaheim Hills which is at most a confederation of homeowner's associations, though in an incorporated city. -Will Beback 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Bonanza is incorporated. The Baca Grande, originally a land development, is a community. Fred Bauder 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That Bonanza is an incorporated place further distinguishes it from Anaheim Hills. I don't know why you assert Manhattan does not have official boundaries or designations - it has both. -Will Beback 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Anaheim Hills is defined with real borders by the Local Agency Formation Commission, far more athoratative than the City of Anaheim's 1857 written charter. Anaheim Hills entirely consists of the 1973 annexed property, and is stated so by the LAFCO, which they are in the process of digitalizing that document right now. Anaheim Hills also can be found using the census by census tract information for this area, since there are no "partial borders" within the census tracts and Anaheim Hills. I agree, many communities break this rule for the rule DOES NOT EXIST. La Jolla, California, Hollywood....on and on, they all break it, because there are only 2 users who enforce it! Plus, there are other places, like San Joaquin Hills, where it is located in both Newport Beach and Laguna Niguel where the articles are names San Joaquin Hills of Newport Beach and San Joaquin Hills of Laguna Niguel. So there really is no widely enforced rule, or these exceptions would not exist. -Ericsaindon2 07:49, 4 August 2006
--Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
We have been over this issue many times. See the discussion at Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 3. As I explained there, Anaheim has simply never given definite boundaries to Anaheim Hills, while other cities like Los Altos and Pasadena certainly know how to give particular neighborhoods definite boundaries. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Introduction of original research by Ericsaindon2

4) Ericsaindon2 has introduced material into Wikipedia which is original research, in some instances plainly false "Anaheim Hills is an incorporated community", :incorporated in 1972", "which is run as an independent city", promotion of Cleveland National Forest to a national park, a city, city, city, city, city, possible bogus city seal, [5], and the wealthy hills theory.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Nowhere on that page about the Cleveland National Forest does it state that you have to name a CITY that the forest starts in because it is not a rule. The forest starts in Anaheim Hills, and I was simply stating that. I was not implying that it was some mega-metropolitan hub like you make it sound. -Ericsaindon2 07:52, 4 August 2006
Essentially, Ericsaindon2 already conceded at [[Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 3

]] that Anaheim Hills is not a city. Yet he keeps trying to present it like one. Under the California Constitution and the California Government Code, a city has a defined boundary, a government, and a legal name. It has the power to sue and be sued, and to tax, and so on. Anaheim Hills doesn't have any of those things. As I've pointed out before in a slightly different fashion, Eric could sue the city of Anaheim, but he can't sue the city of Anaheim Hills because it doesn't exist. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Tendentious editing by Ericsaindon2

5) Ericsaindon2 has engaged in tendentious editing with respect to articles which relate to Anaheim Hills, listing Anaheim Hills as a city, listing Anaheim Hills as a suburb, "major city", city infobox, edit warring, edit warring, and removal of Unreferencedsect tag from original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
A suburb and a city are two completely different things, Anaheim Hills is a suburb. And you have used the Cleveland National Forest evidence three times so far in this page. -Ericsaindon2 07:55, 4 August 2006
Comment by others:

[edit] Appropriate editing by Ericsaindon2

6) Some of the editing by Ericsaindon2 which relates to Anaheim Hills is appropriate [6] and [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
That is incorrect. The City of Anaheim does not endorse this assertion:
  • Anaheim is divided into two different communities, the main middle class city of Anaheim, and the upper class community of Anaheim Hills located on the east part of the city.
According to the city's planning department, it is divided into several regions, none of which are called "Anaheim Hills." The applicable area is called "the Hill and Canyon Area". (large PDF) ES has never provided evidence to support his assertion that Anaheim is split into two parts. -Will Beback 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A term in common usage which gets over a million hits when you google it does not require official sanction by the City of Anaheim. Fred Bauder 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has argued that we shouldn't have any article about Anaheim Hills (AH). The issue is that ES is declaring, on his own, that Anaheim is divided into two parts (Anaheim and AH), that AH has specific boundaries, and that it has a calculable population, housing density, income level, etc. -Will Beback 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The city of Anaheim refuses to face the fact that Anaheim Hills is wealthy, and of course the charter is not going to state that the eastern part of the city is wealthy because it is irrelevant to the document. Looking at Census, you can see that the eastern part of the city is wealthy, and the central and western part is not. Plus, I do not care how the city itself recognizes the community, the County of Orange recognizes Anaheim Hills in its 3rd district page, and it is stated clearly there that Anaheim Hills is represented. It is also recognized by the Orange County Register, Orange County Government and the State of California. Thus, all these references suggest that Anaheim Hills and Anaheim form two different parts of the community. All communities have districts, like Newport Beach, but those community districts do not confine to the boundaries set by Newport Coast, Balboa Island, Santa Ana Heights, or San Joaquin Hills, yet all communities are still recognized. And again, must I remind you that Anaheim Hills is defined with real borders by the Local Agency Formation Commission, far more athoratative than the City of Anaheim's 1857 written charter. Anaheim Hills entirely consists of the 1973 annexed property, and is stated so by the LAFCO, which they are in the process of digitalizing that document right now. Anaheim Hills also can be found using the census by census tract information for this area, since there are no "partial borders" within the census tracts and Anaheim Hills -Ericsaindon2 08:00, 4 August 2006
As I pointed out before, the City of Anaheim's own Neighborhood Services Web page [8] explains that the City has four neighborhood districts: West, Central, South, and East, and shows their boundaries on a map. Also, the City of Anaheim clearly knows how to recognize special districts when it needs to, because right now, on the front page of the Web site there is a link to this page [9] with information on the proposed creation of a "Platinum Triangle" assessment district. Finally, Ericsaindon2's only claimed source for the legal recognition of "Anaheim Hills" continues to be a single document from OCLAFCO, and apparently he is the only person who knows it exists. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Productive original research

7) Some of Ericsaindon2 edits, which while they may contain elements of original research, are nevertheless productive [10], map, map, climate and schools, [11], and a marginal case.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
The first edit listed included the addition of several unlicensed images. -Will Beback 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The "climate and schools" edit was entirely original research (with the exception of school addresses), including POV about the schools. It was not a productive edit. -Will Beback 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia contains much similar material. So long as it is not controversial it is usually considered acceptable. Fred Bauder 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I bow to you Mr.Bauder. I was at Wikipedia for about 45 minutes when I made those edits, and all were in good intention. I later went back, and sourced everything. Plus, the school information was based on the Orange Unified School Districts report card of the issue. I never meant to do any vandalism to the page, and I used all factual research, I was just too new to know how to site any of it. Ericsaindon2 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

8) Ericsaindon2, after the article on Anaheim Hills was moved to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" made a number of analogous title changes to other articles, some quite disruptive [12]. This included the move of Manhattan to "Manhattan, New York (state)". One supposes the point was to point out the absurdity of the changes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I am really sorry for that, and if I have one regret, it was the move warring I involved myself in, and I wish I could take it back, and should have gone to an admin for help. But, to stand up for myself, I can count 93 page moves I have made to conform to naming policies at Wikipedia, far outnumbering the 6 I made at Anaheim Hills. Plus, I did not know you could not copy and paste at the time, and when I made that copy and paste move, I was informed it was wrong, and did not do it again.Ericsaindon2 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Vandalism

9) Ericsaindon2 has vandalized user pages [13], [14], [15], and [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone who uses sockpuppets extensively is in no position to deny an edit by a probable sock. Fred Bauder 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I just did not see why I could not remove the sock pages of my accused socks, but he was virtually immuned to his socks. It did not make any sense to me why he was not allowed to have a sock tag, but I was very much allowed to. I apologize if I caused any inconvinence on that one as well. Ericsaindon2 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Your transparent attempts to vandalize my user page and make me look like a sockpuppet user were ridiculous and are further proof of bad faith on your part. Anaheimat was clearly one of your sockpuppets. I have never used sockpuppets on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Dishonesty by Ericsaindon2

10) Ericsaindon2 added Anaheim Hills to Wikipedia:Featured articles [17] and to the talk page [18] when it was not a featured article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
ES claimed to be an administrator, to have worked on hundreds of good articles, to have accumulated over 9000 edits, and to have been named "Editor of the month" many times, even prior to his editing at WP. [19][20] He altered a statement by Fred Bauder regarding a Checkuser finding.[21] -Will Beback 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone who has despised me, like you Will Beback from day one might not consider my 9,000+ edits good, but I consider about 90% of them good. So, it is my talk page, and if I want to claim that all of my edits were good, it is my page to be able to do that on. Although I dont think alot of your edits are good, I dont care if you claimed you had 1 million good edits because it is your talk page. Plus, if I want to call myself editor of the month, who cares. I was not threatening anyone, or spamming other pages with it, it was on my talk page. Again, if you want to put that on yours, go ahead. It is my space to do what I want, and talk pages do not need a neutral POV. That is why people have Wikimoods and userboxes, to express themselves there, and it is not a space where you need to confine yourself to all of the rules set for General Articles. Ericsaindon2 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Will Beback's analysis. Ericsaindon2 has a pattern of engaging in dishonest, immoral, and unethical behavior. Instead of going down to the library and pulling some real sources, or buying a camera and taking some pictures, he prefers to post unsourced original research and upload other people's photos to Wikipedia! As noted elsewhere, he also uses sockpuppets, violates 3RR, and frequently edits other users' edits (see his exchange with Calton at Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll). --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
As you can see above, Eric is still claiming that he has more than 9,000 edits. Using Interiot's javascipt tool (User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js), it is easy to find that as of 7 August 2006, he has only 881 total edits in four months. If you want to add all of the edits that he has done from sockpuppets and anon IPs, he might have double that number of total edits. That is clearly much, much less than 9,000 edits.
Then there is the claim on his user page of having "significantly contributed to 451 Good Articles on Wikipedia". If Eric had followed the Good Article link, he would have found that Good Articles has a very specific meaning on the Wikipedia. Eric has only edited 437 total Wikipedia articles, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't edited any of the articles that are classified as Good Articles. BlankVerse 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Coolcaesar)Personal Attacks

1) This was wrong of this user, and should not occur under any circumstance. Calling people idiots, pigpents, retards, and saying things like what a mess and what the hell, and calling people dyslexic is wrong. It should not be done, considering all of the pieces of evidence against this user were done by people who were editing in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is most definately a problem Ericsaindon2 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I have conceded elsewhere, some of my comments were extreme and I have already apologized for that. However, with regard to the underlying sentiment, I generally stand behind it, in that I was contesting edits which were clearly foolish or wrong (that is, they were factually incorrect or disrupted the flow of the article). Some of the articles I have copyedited were in poor shape, with regard to spelling, grammar, and style. Furthermore, I have never attacked edits which were properly sourced and well-written, and I have never attacked well-composed photographs which were properly uploaded and licensed to Wikipedia under the GFDL or CC licenses. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] (Coolcaesar)Ignorance of Warnings

1) Despite being warned over 13 times over a 14 month span, Coolcaesar continued personally attacking people. This is a violation of not making personal attacks, or attacking new users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Posted by Ericsaindon2 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] (Coolcaesar)Apology Untruths

1) After apologizing to the Arbitration Committee when his case was pending, he personally attacked 4 more users in just 29 hours, making his list at over 300 personal attacks in 15 months. He was again confronted after his apology about his behavior, and it still had not ceased to stop. He now totals 153 people he has attacked, 24 of them multiple times, and on 143 talk pages of users and pagespaces.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Posted by Ericsaindon2 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As usual, Ericsaindon2 is engaged in gross exaggeration, because of his childish notion that "if I can't edit Wikipedia, neither can you." If he had spent some time going to the library to get sources, instead of engaging in vindictive and irrational behavior on Wikipedia, I would never have filed this arbitration to begin with. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
These are your actions....not mine. ;) Ericsaindon2 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And this arbitration is primarily about your behavior, not mine. Plus, your count of my personal attacks is grossly exaggerated, which is further evidence of your bad faith (or as one editor pointed out elsewhere, your mendacity). --Coolcaesar 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {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] One name

1) Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that one name.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I can agree to that, as long as the 3rr is NOT abused by Will Beback, in giving me one after only 2 reverts, and I am not put on a 9+ day block, when Will told me it was a 24 hour block. I most definately would use only 1 name in a heartbeat if everyone did their part to follow the rules, and all will be peaceful. Ericsaindon2 08:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Ericsaindon2 banned

2) Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Now wait a minute, is that not a bit drastic? Ericsaindon2 08:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is an appropriate remedy. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Ericsaindon2 placed on probation

3) Ericsaindon2 is placed on probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate remedy since the admins have already cut Ericsaindon2 a lot of slack and he has failed to act in good faith every time his access to Wikipedia was re-enabled. If you look at the recent history of the Anaheim Hills article[22], after his one month block expired, Ericsaindon2 went right back to adding unsourced information to the article, and finally admin Cowman109 had to intervene and clamp down full protection on the article. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] (Coolcaesar)Ban

1) I propose that Coolcaesar be banned for 7 months from Wikipedia for his 300+ instances of Personal Attacks. This includes the attacks he made after falsefully apologizing to the Arbitration Committee, and despite the now 14 times he has been warned about his actions. This would give him time to think about his actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Approve Ericsaindon2 08:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Eric would propose such an extreme remedy for my occasional use of sharp language is itself evidence of Eric's bad faith! I do research. I take photos. I clean up poorly written articles. Eric does not. --Coolcaesar 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok ,you may do that, but while you clean up articles, you make sure that every one who has ever edited the page before know that they made a huge mess, and that they are idiots and retards for making the huge mess. That is NOT productive. Ericsaindon2 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {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] Enforcement by block

1) Should Ericsaindon2 violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {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: