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 Template 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 Use of alternate accounts 4.1.2 Use of sockpuppet accounts by administrators 4.1.3 Administrators 4.1.4 Abusive sockpuppetry 4.1.5 Responses to Arbitration Committee concerns 4.1.6 Template 4.1.7 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Henrygb's use of sockpuppet accounts 4.2.2 Henrygb 4.2.3 Alternate accounts of Henrygb 4.2.4 Abusive sockpuppetry 4.2.5 Failure to respond to concerns 4.2.6 SE16 4.2.7 Template 4.2.8 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Henrygb desysopped 4.3.2 Henrygb limited to one account 4.3.3 Henrygb banned until Henrygb responds 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] Template

1) Henrygb to be deadminned for the course of the proceedings. Other accounts to be blocked - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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] 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] Use of alternate accounts

1) Multiple accounts are tolerated, though users are encouraged not to use them. Using multiple accounts to provide the illusion of greater consensus is abusive. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse in substance; (4) below is a little more specific and links to the policy, if desired. Newyorkbrad 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of sockpuppet accounts by administrators

2) Abusive sockpuppetry is particularly unacceptable conduct for an administrator. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Newyorkbrad 10:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

3) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgment may result in de-sysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Borrowed from several other cases, most recently Betacommand. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive sockpuppetry

4) Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, an official policy, provides that the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists, is forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Arbitration Committee concerns

5) Editors, particularly administrators, are expected to respond reasonably and in good faith to questions and concerns raised by members of the Arbitration Committee acting in their official capacity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ", particularly administrators," is needed. Why must admins be particularly responsive? Every should be responsive, but no more or less based on whether they have admin tools. I therefore suggest that wording is removed. Picaroon (Talk) 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[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] Henrygb's use of sockpuppet accounts

1) Henrygb has run the sockpuppet accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts and SE16 as abusive sockpuppets. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse in substance, based on the evidence presented, but suggest the proposals below as an alternate formulation providing a bit more detail. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrygb

2) Henrygb (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has edited Wikipedia since 2003 and has a long history of good-faith contributions. He has been an administrator since April 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not generally a fan of this sort of "feel good" proposal. All editors, especially those promoted to admin, are assumed to be good faith contributors until proven otherwise, and the idea of stating it just to "soften the blow" of other findings seems rather silly. Plus in this case, it is partially factually inaccurate, since Audiovideo and Facethefacts were created before Henrygb was promoted and Audivideo voted on Henrygb's RFA. Thatcher131 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say only good-faith contributions. At any rate, an introductory paragraph identifying the subject is always helpful. The rest is, I suppose, dispensible. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate accounts of Henrygb

3) As established by highly reliable checkuser evidence, and not denied by Henrygb, Audiovideo (talk · contribs) and Facethefacts (talk · contribs) are alternate accounts of Henrygb.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obviously, I don't have checkuser access so the finding is based on the evidence presented by David Gerard, coupled with the user's failure to deny or respond to it. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive sockpuppetry

4) Henrygb's use of his alternate accounts has frequently violated the sockpuppet policy, including several instances of double-!voting on requests for adminship and in deletion debates. (See evidence.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to respond to concerns

5) Beginning on April 2, 2007, several weeks before this case was initiated, members of the Arbitration Committee notified Henrygb that there were serious concerns about his use of multiple accounts. He was asked to contact the committee to address the matter. See multiple threads on User talk:Henrygb. Henrygb failed to address the concerns raised, either on-wiki or by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, and has not submitted a statement or evidence in this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SE16

6) As established by checkuser, SE16 (talk · contribs) is another alternate account of Henrygb. This account was created on April 15, 2007, two weeks after Henrygb's use of sockpuppets was first raised as an issue on his talkpage, at a time when Henrygb's main account had been blocked by an arbitrator with the block summary "please contact ArbCom". This was a block evasion; however, there is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry such as double-voting by this account and it made good-faith contributions for three weeks before itself being blocked as a sockpuppet account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Henrygb could have contacted arbcom by e-mail (as requested) and asked to be allowed to quietly disappear and begin fresh. He didn't. Block evasion is block evasion. Thatcher131 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My point was simply that his actual editing, when decoupled from administrator status and limited to a single account, has been acceptable. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[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] Henrygb desysopped

1) Henrygb is to be deadminned. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest 1a as alternate. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but did he use his privileges as an admin in a way which aided and abetted his sockpuppetry? If so, let's find the incident and note it as a finding of fact. Did he unblock his socks? Did he block users who edit warred with his socks? Did he delete or protect pages in a way which benefitted his socks? Or did he only vote stack in ways that could have been done using only a set of "regular editor" accounts? If the latter case is true, desysopping him would fail to address the actual problem (and in my opinion, should probably only be used as a preventative measure against him unblocking himself if the decision here is to ban him from Wikipedia completely, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). —freak(talk) 16:40, May. 22, 2007 (UTC)

However, this remedy should be mandatory in the event that remedy "(2a) ... or may establish a new account, whose identity shall be disclosed only to..." passes. —freak(talk) 16:49, May. 22, 2007 (UTC)

1a) Henrygb's administrator privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time through WP:RfA, but only after giving notice to the Arbitration Committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, or by appeal to this committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The first sentence is the formulation of the desysopping remedy that is currently being used. The second sentence gives the customary permission to reapply either through RfA or by appeal to ArbCom, but with a caveat that may be appropriate in this case. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrygb limited to one account

2) Henrygb's other accounts are to be blocked indefinitely and he is not to run other accounts than Henrygb. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest 2a as alternate. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the most (and quite possibly the only) necessary remedy at this time. —freak(talk) 16:47, May. 22, 2007 (UTC)

2a) Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. He may continue to use any one of his existing accounts, such as Henrygb, or may establish a new account, whose identity shall be disclosed only to a designated member or members of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Why would we want to protect him from the ramifications of his malfeasance? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It appears from the recent history of Henrygb's newest account that he wishes to continue making good-faith contributions without having them associated with his Henrygb identity. There is precedent (e.g. Jtkiefer) for allowing one opportunity for a fresh start in these circumstances. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jpgordon, I don't feel strongly about it either way, but per the Jtkiefer precedent and extensive discussion at the time of the Pegasus1138 RfA, and to try to preserve the benefits of Henrygb's legitimate editing. On the other hand, a distinguishing factor is that Jtkiefer had asked for one more chance.... Newyorkbrad 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, a secret account change should incur a mandatory forfeiture of sysop access, mostly for purposes of bureaucrat accountability. I don't agree with the back-alley transfers of admin access from one account to another which have been occurring lately. —freak(talk) 16:47, May. 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrygb banned until Henrygb responds

3) Henrygb is banned until he responds to ArbCom's concerns on this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Since he won't talk to us about this, we cannot assume good faith anymore; in fact, we must assume the opposite. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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:

I put deadminning as the only actual remedy. That should be enough as far as a discouraging penalty goes. - David Gerard 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've added some additional proposals, basically to flesh things out a bit and to use wording more typical of that found in current arbitration decisions. Obviously, I am not in a position to verify the checkuser findings and am taking their accuracy as a given. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)