Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/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 may edit, for voting.

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:
 * It's already been done. Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage Investigators seem to think it is appropriate for arbitrators in this arena to deliver their verdict. As for myself your welcome to do that, but the gate has already been shut by the apparent banning. Tezza1 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


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

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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=

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. An attempt to cover advocacy in more general terms.  Durova  Charge! 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

User Tezza1 is disruptive
1) (and related sockpuppet accounts) is a disruptive editor on the Railpage Australia article and related pages.  See evidence at.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response, 203.161.118.218 has made no edits or comments outside this arena . Anonymous comments like those just made are the crux of my issue with the Railpage article. I would hope that the Arbitrators examine the behavior of everyone involved. This should include editors Thin Arthur, Null Device and Dbromage. Tezza1 (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Supported. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. The investigators Jreferee and Rlevse have left it to the arbitrators here to make a ruling on that case in this forum. See conclusion of Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response, 203.161.118.218 has made no edits or comments outside this arena . Anonymous comments like those just made are the crux of my issue with the Railpage article. I would hope that the Arbitrators examine the behavior of everyone involved. This should include editors Thin Arthur, Null Device and Dbromage. Tezza1 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- [User:Tezza1 Tezza1] (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject strongly, Tezza1 discredited. See Proposed Decision Tezza1. Alcofan (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User - The Null Device
3) The_Null_Device Is a single purpose account who has edited heavily the Railpage article and, has not been truthful about their identity  to Administrator Durova being linked with user and suspected sock puppeteer Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage.  This single purpose account has taken action on numerous occasions against editor Tezza1   without disclosing their suspected COI.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response - On the contrary, Investigator Jreferee has made a detailed analysis of my complaint Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. His findings await a verdict/conclusion here in this arena. Editor JzG presents the case of the The Null Device being a single purpose account as evidence in this arbitration. . Tezza1 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed -- Tezza1 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. The above proposed finding presupposes that The Null Device is a sock puppet. Editing history clearly shows that The Null Device is not a single purpose account and has numerous non-trivial edits of articles completely unrelated to Railpage Australia. The proportion of non-Railpage edits to this account is significantly higher than for Tezza1. If the finding that The Null Device is a SPA holds, then by the same argument Tezza1 is also a SPA. No COI has been established. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. The above proposed finding presupposes that The Null Device is a sock puppet. Editing history clearly shows that The Null Device is not a single purpose account and has numerous non-trivial edits of articles completely unrelated to Railpage Australia. The proportion of non-Railpage edits to this account is significantly higher than for Tezza1. If the finding that The Null Device is a SPA holds, then by the same argument Tezza1 is also a SPA. No COI has been established. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject strongly, Tezza1 discredited. See Proposed Decision Tezza1. Alcofan (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User - Thin Arthur
4) Thin_Arthur (the one who brought these arbitration proceedings) has not been truthful  after the fact or has been misleading in his explanations in  Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. This editor did not disclose that he/she had a direct relationship with and when editing Railpage article content., being connected with the article subject founder  David Bromage. The editor account "Thin Arthur" is either a sock puppet, role account or has acted in close consultation with User:Dbromage. My allegations of sock puppetry, role account, collusion are based on Thin Arthur and User:Dbromage editing and voting patterns in other articles and Afd's ,. Tezza1 (talk)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:

Note the ban warning which the anonymous editor cites refers to was an unintentional act on by behalf, I reworded my allegations which were then held to be valid Tezza1 (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Response - Thin Arthur editing and voting pattern closely follows User:Dbromage. Investigator Jreferee has made a detailed analysis of my complaint with regards to Thin Arthur Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. His findings await a verdict/conclusion here in this arena. Until I complained about sock puppetry (which then resulted in this arbitration), editor Thin Arthur suddenly admits "knowing" - working with an individual mentioned the Railpage Article (David Bromage). I contend that this editor is either a sock puppet, role account or at the very least has colluded with User:Dbromage in action against me and discussion on the Railpage talk page. My allegations of sock puppetry, role account, collusion are based on Thin Arthur and User:Dbromage editing and voting patterns in other articles and Afd's ,.


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- Tezza1 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. NO evidence that Thin Arthur has been untruthful or explanations have been misleading. The connection with the subject founder is very tenuous. RFCU found that Thin Arthur being a sock puppet was possible but the evidence was not conclusive. Thin Arthur's explanation establishes that reasonable doubt exists. I find it bizarre that Tezza1 expects individual editors to disclose personal information after being given a ban warning for doing just that. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. NO evidence that Thin Arthur has been untruthful or explanations have been misleading. The connection with the subject founder is very tenuous. RFCU found that Thin Arthur being a sock puppet was possible but the evidence was not conclusive. Thin Arthur's explanation establishes that reasonable doubt exists. I find it bizarre that Tezza1 expects individual editors to disclose personal information after being given a ban warning for doing just that. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject strongly, Tezza1 discredited. See Proposed Decision Tezza1. Alcofan (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User - Dbromage
5) User:Dbromage has edited the Railpage article without disclosing his COI and used the following single user sock puppet accounts User:The_Null_Device and/or has acted in close consultation with editor/sock/role account User:Thin_Arthur. See Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage for evidence. Allegations of sock puppetry, role account, collusion are based on Thin Arthur, The Null Device and User:Dbromage similar editing and voting patterns in other articles and Afd's
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response: Refer all of my above proposed findings of fact. I contest that this editor is connected with the above editor account.My allegations of sock puppetry, role account, collusion are based on The Null Device, Thin Arthur and User:Dbromage editing and voting patterns in other articles and Afd's ,. Tezza1 (talk)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- Tezza1 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. Dbromage is not a party to this complaint and even a cursory amount of research shows that Dbromage ceased all involvement with the article subject at least 16 months ago, long before edit warring. Therefore there no motivation for either sock puppetry or meta puppetry has been established. The small number of edits to Railpage Australia do not suggest any breach of COI. The above proposed finding presupposes that The Null Device and Thin Arthur are single user sock puppets, which has not been established. The "evidence" presented by Tezza1 is largely circumstantial and the RFCU was inconclusive. This does not establish any fact beyond reasonable doubt. Editing history clearly shows that The Null Device is not a single purpose account by any stretch of the imagination and shows numerous contributions to articles unrelated to Railpage Australia. The proportion of non-Railpage edits to this account is significantly higher than for Tezza1. It could therefore be argued that Tezza1 is in fact a SPA as the editing history clearly shows a tiny proportion of edits are unrelated in some way to Railpage Australia. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected. Dbromage is not a party to this complaint and even a cursory amount of research shows that Dbromage ceased all involvement with the article subject at least 16 months ago, long before edit warring. Therefore there no motivation for either sock puppetry or meta puppetry has been established. The small number of edits to Railpage Australia do not suggest any breach of COI. The above proposed finding presupposes that The Null Device and Thin Arthur are single user sock puppets, which has not been established. The "evidence" presented by Tezza1 is largely circumstantial and the RFCU was inconclusive. This does not establish any fact beyond reasonable doubt. Editing history clearly shows that The Null Device is not a single purpose account by any stretch of the imagination and shows numerous contributions to articles unrelated to Railpage Australia. The proportion of non-Railpage edits to this account is significantly higher than for Tezza1. It could therefore be argued that Tezza1 is in fact a SPA as the editing history clearly shows a tiny proportion of edits are unrelated in some way to Railpage Australia. 203.161.118.218 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject strongly, Tezza1 discredited. See Proposed Decision Tezza1. Alcofan (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User Tezza1 is a single purpose account
6) Tezza1 a single purpose account who has engaged in heavily disruptive editing to the Railpage Australia article and has made few other contributions outside this arena. The case for Tezza1 being a single purpose account is presented by the following table.

This analysis clearly shows Tezza1 being a single purpose account. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response, 203.161.118.218 has made no edits......Sorry, I've made a mistake, we now have a new anonymous editor!!!. I'll start again. 203.30.75.12 has made no edits or comments outside this arena . Anonymous comments like those just made are the crux of my issue with the Railpage article. I would hope that the Arbitrators examine the behavior of everyone involved. This should include editors Thin Arthur, Null Device and Dbromage. Tezza1 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Alcofan (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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:

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: