Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Workshop

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&mdash;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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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:

Parties enjoined
1) The parties to this case [or, list certain parties] are enjoined from using article talk pages [or, any page] from complaining of each others' behavior. For the duration of this proceeding, any such complaints should be made before Arbcom.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fine by me. I agree that complaints about behavior closely related to a case should go in the case. I would prefer all involved parties to be subject to the same injunction, rather than picking and choosing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I'd like to see User:Theserialcomma added to the list of parties. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as a way to avoid this series of edits at Talk:DreamHost. Personally, I would have closed the thread as an uninvolved editor, on theory that it does not relate to improvement of the article (per WP:TALK), has degenerated into accusations and incivility, and the accusations made there are redundant to Arbcom proceedings.  But with accusations flying, an administrator involved, editors removing and restoring each other's (inappropriate) comments, it does not look like a good place to weigh in.  A stay-away order could work too, or temporary article bans.  However it can be fashioned, enjoining editors from bickering like that may help calm things, and would free up that article so that it becomes editable.  Right now it's a bit of a toxic clean-up zone.  I'm not otherwise involved here, beyond having made a couple comments on user talk pages.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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=

194x144x90x118
1) 194x144x90x118 has engaged in a sustained pattern of edit warring, personal attacks, and generally combative editing contrary to consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per the evidence submitted. Erik9 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

194x144x90x118 banned
1) 194x144x90x118 is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Erik9 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Wikipedia community advised to strengthen community bans
1) An editor that responds to an RfC with both disdain for the Wikipedia community and clear lack of remorse for his unhelpful actions should clearly be issued a community ban without the intervention of ArbCom, as Wikipedia works best through consensus, not pettifogging. The Wikipedia community is advised to use an open forum to obtain consensus for a ban in these situations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not seriously proposing this exact statement but ArbCom should at least take this idea into consideration. Shii (tock) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a Community Sanction Noticeboard which was marked historical following a MfD. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the inactivation of WP:CSN, community bans can and have been enacted subsequently via discussion at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. However, requests for community bans should be employed judiciously, because, should a consensus for a ban not be reached, subsequent referral of the matter to the Arbitration Committee is likely to prove more difficult. Furthermore, community ban discussions do not ordinarily offer adequate consideration of the behavior of all parties involved in a dispute. This favorable feature of arbitration is likely to be moot in this particular case, since all of the useful evidence submitted relates to misconduct by 194x144x90x118, but is certainly advantageous in many other situations arising from content disputes. Erik9 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worthwhile to note that one of the justifications for the deactivation of WP:CSN was that the noticeboard encouraged the overuse of community bans, to the extent of generating kangaroo court proceedings with little evidentiary basis. Erik9 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

User:194x144x90x118 to edit with conditions
1) "Last-chance" mentoring for 1 month, followed by re-evaluation of case. User:194x144x90x118 is to undertake mentoring with an experienced editor. (I, GTBacchus, am willing to volunteer for this.) The continued participation of User:194x144x90x118 would be contingent on meeting the conditions set by a mentor appointed by ArbCom. Any violation of these conditions would lead to a ban, as suggested in other proposed remedies. Mentoring is to include communication with mentor regarding controversial edits, cooperation with mentor in working on articles, and an understanding that a mentor would mediate any disputes that may arise.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could you give us some idea of what you would include in the mentorship conditions, GTBacchus? Risker (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's just what I said at Talk:Proposed decision#Mentoring. No comments of any kind about other editors; only about edits and sources. No reverts outside of the BRD model (in other words, 1RR). No disrespectful posts or edit summaries of any kind. None of that is necessary for improving articles, so none of it need occur. With those cut out, what's left are good strategies, such as neutrally seeking opinions from WikiProjects and other relevant talk pages, using WP:3O and content RFCs, and small piecewise reverts to isolate the locus of disputes. I'd be willing to model these practices, editing as a proxy as necessary to provide an example of how it can work. It's a high standard, higher than most Wikipedians adhere to. If an editor is willing to comply with those conditions in order to keep editing, I don't see how the problems addressed in this case can persist. (If everyone agreed to edit by such standards... now that would be pretty cool.) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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
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:

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: