Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Anthøny 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Satisfactory explanation?
It's unusual (but not unheard of) to ban someone pending an explanation. More usual is to just apply whatever remedies are thought appropriate and leave it at that. This sometimes includes a ban on other grounds, but rarely merely for the act of silence ('pleading the fifth', in a sense). So, I was wondering, is Eyrian banned because of particular features of what has led to his desysopping insofar as the committee believes there is more to be learnt from the situation than so far has met their eyes? Or is the committee banning him simply for not participating in an arbitration case against him in the generic? I'm not request details you cannot divulge, I'm just interested. Splash - tk 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a number of unanswered questions here; but the biggest one, in my view, is Eyrian's relationship to the banned user his account was originally blocked as a sockpuppet of. The affair looks rather too much like an organized conspiracy to disrupt the project for my liking; Eyrian needs to give us some explanation of what exactly happened here if we're to determine that it's safe to allow him to edit freely again. Kirill 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for the response. Splash - tk 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Restriction from "the usual means"
So, since it seems even one arbitrator is uncertain about this, could the one of the other arbs possibly explain (in general terms, of course) why Eyrian is being restricted from regaining adminship by RfA? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)