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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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)[reply]

I support BlankVerse's amendment. -Will Beback 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^Blank ^Verse 11:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ericsaindon2

1) Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is confirmed by checkuser to also edit as OC31113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a large number of anonymous ips 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Introduction of original research by Ericsaindon2

3) 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, [4], and the wealthy hills theory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing by Ericsaindon2

4) 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appropriate editing by Ericsaindon2

5) Some of the editing by Ericsaindon2 which relates to Anaheim Hills is appropriate [5] and [6].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Productive original research

6) Some of Ericsaindon2 edits, which while they may contain elements of original research, are nevertheless productive [7], map, map, climate and schools, [8], and a marginal case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The first edit listed included the addition of several unlicensed images. -Will Beback 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: