Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppets and meatpuppets

2) Whether or not confirmed by CheckUser, a set of users who edit in the same manner may be considered one user.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Naming convention for places

4) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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 sockpuppets and anonymous IPs (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence#Ericsaindon2 has been using sockpuppets) is alleged to have engaged in tendentious editing of articles which relate to Anaheim Hills.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Communities

3) There are a number of notable communities or neighborhoods, new and old, which are commonly known by names which do not comport with the services offered by the United States Postal Service or with official city boundaries or designations. In addition to Anaheim Hills, Manhattan, Bonanza, Colorado, Park Hill (Denver), Capital Hill (Denver), and the Baca Grande are examples of such common usage.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Simon. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Fairly obvious, but this is a rulling on facts rather than user conduct. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of original research by Ericsaindon2

4) 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by Ericsaindon2

5) 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

6) Ericsaindon2, after the article on Anaheim Hills was moved to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California", made a number of analogous title changes to other articles, some quite disruptive [5]. This included the move of Manhattan to "Manhattan, New York (state)". One supposes the point was to point out the absurdity of the changes.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vandalism

7) Ericsaindon2 has vandalized user pages [6], [7], [8], and [9].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dishonesty by Ericsaindon2

8) Ericsaindon2 added Anaheim Hills to Wikipedia:Featured articles [10] and to the talk page [11] when it was not a featured article. See also Comments by party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop#Dishonesty_by_Ericsaindon2.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

One name

1) Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that name.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ericsaindon2 banned

2) Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ericsaindon2 placed on Probation

3) Ericsaindon2 is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Ericsaindon2 violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log of blocks and bans

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• The majority is 6.
• Everything passes 6-0 except Finding 3, which fails.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. All but FoF 3 pass. Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. - SimonP 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. James F. (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close Fred Bauder 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]