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. 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[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Civility[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modified slightly Fred Bauder 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Pretty standard civility principle. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stalking[edit]

2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modified from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

How do you determine intention in limited cases (assuming intention is obvious in obvious cases)? Thatcher131 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I would say assuming bad faith, which is what Bunchofgrapes has done most if not all of the time. EE 13:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence indicates at least one of these edits was made "partly out of vengeance"; assuming good faith does not extend as far as you need it to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Going through my contributions and bringing about this edit seconds after it was posted on the original RFAr page is just as much stalking and assuming bad faith. EE 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. This page is on my watchlist. I check my watchlist a lot. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that my contributions is on your watchlist? Really? Suddenly, I have a problem with believing that story of nonsense. —EE

No. I'm saying this page -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop -- and the other EE arbitration pages are on my watchlist. Obviously. As is Cool (song). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what does that have to do with what I said? Yes, I have Cool (song) on my talk page too. Are you intentionally avoiding my question? —EE 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Bunchofgrapes appears to be intentionally ignoring my question, I would like to appeal to the ArbCom that this edit (which was written by me and used as evidence), was added to the original RFAr (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox) merely minutes later. I would assume nothing less than stalking in this case by simply using, in the words of Bunchofgrapes, common sense. EE 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous behaviour, and that the message you linked to above was sent after this RFAr had been initiated, Bunchofgrapes had every reason to be monitoring your contributions. For the record, I am as well; I'd consider it careless not to. Read Wikipedia:Harassment and you'll see that it states "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." Extraordinary Machine 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, constantly analyzing and checking to assure that each edit is of good faith is rather excessive, especially when one uses information that was placed on a talk page moments before — this leads me to believe that someone is always looking at my list of contributions. While what I am about to tell you is not connected with this RFAr, for the record too, I might as well tell you that I've been looking at others' contributions as of late (since July 15th) to keep updated on recent events. —EE 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally provoking other editors[edit]

3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions; perhaps better then 2) in that "limited stalking" may be a novel principle and this one covers the problem anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sockpuppet accounts[edit]

4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

More than one person on an account[edit]

5) Explanations that several people are using a computer or the same user account are not acceptable. It will be presumed that all edits from a single computer or user account are the responsibility of one user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The disruptive behavior of Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at issue. Considerations include aggressive and inappropriate use of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, ownership of articles, and obsessive editing of pop music articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Eternal Equinox[edit]

2) Eternal Equinox has engaged in personal attacks [1] and [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taunting[edit]

3) Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [3], and [4], [5], [6], and [7], and [8], [9], [10].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The first of the Bishonen diffs [11] is deceptive -- it appears she is restoring Jim62sch's "multiple personality" statement along with her new bits, but you also need to look at the very next edit -- "Editing older version, sorry." The restoration was an error, quickly addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That diff is all the interaction I can recall seeing between Jim62sch and EE. I'm not entirely sure a one-off like that is worth notice. Bearing in mind too that this (and Bishone's first two diffs here) were in response to a "Fuck You All" notice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personalized struggle by Eternal Equinox[edit]

4) Eternal Equinox expresses her view of editing as a personal struggle with other users [12]. He/She has stated, "I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hollow Wilerding and socks[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Leaving[edit]

6) Eternal Equinox has "left" Wikipedia and is no longer editing under that account Special:Contributions/Eternal_Equinox, but has continued to edit Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence#July_15:_Eternal_Equinox_is_back_and_still_editing_from_the_same_Toronto-area_IP_range. Her latest statement, made July 20, 2006, is that she may return in September [13].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Eternal Equinox banned for personal attacks[edit]

1) Eternal Equinox is banned for one year for personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used Fred Bauder 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jim62sch, Bishonen, and HeyNow10029 cautioned[edit]

2) Jim62sch, Bishonen, and HeyNow10029 are cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting difficult users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not consider I have been taunting EE, and at that period I was trying hard to ignore her. Speaking for my edits, while they're not friendly, they need context. This edit was new information for EE: I was telling her about a conclusion I'd drawn from something she had carelessly written in an e-mail to me (I'd asked her to desist with the e-mailing), it wasn't a question of going on about her old socks. Her reaction shows this. [14]. As for this one, I consider it extremely restrained after the storm of abusive positively-last-appearances, chiefly by e-mail, to which EE had treated me during the previous week. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Taunting section in Findings, above for my comments. At first glance [15] appears bad, but the next diff shows the restoration of Jim52sch's PA was inadvertant. Bishonen's response to EE's fifteenth goodbye, also cited in findings, was actually awarded a "common sense brick" by Raul654, if I recall correctly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is the most surprising proposal of all. While other people might have joked about the yo-yo effect of EE or denigrated EE, Bishonen has been very consistently restrained, nearly muffled, in her expressions. If one cautions Bishonen about taunting in any way other than "we caution everyone," then it would be helpful to know what taunting she did, as, watching all along, I honestly never saw any. Geogre 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched as Bishonen spent an inordinate amount of time, endlessly discussing, pleading, cajoling, ignoring, counseling, warning, mediating, and smoothing, but never taunting. Paul August ☎ 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, please see comments under 'Giano banned for taunting' below.--Mcginnly | Natter 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano banned for taunting[edit]

3) Giano is banned for one month due to aggressive taunting involving a suggestion of death [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If Giano's banned, you've seen the last of me too. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by others:

Don't bother yourselves I have gone already too. Giano | talk 22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be silly, in the extreme to ban one of our very best editors. The only effect of such a ban would be to hurt our encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, I followed most of these exchanges in "real time", and it was clear to me Giano was simply trying in his own inimitable way, to use satire to counter what was a truly unpleasant and seemingly unending insertion of an editor into the editorial lives of Bishonen, Giano, and others. While his tactics would not have been mine (see inimitable above), given the gross provocation, I don't think they were particularly inappropriate. I also think that there was a charming Old World chivalry aspect to our Italian knight-errant Giano, trying to rescue our damsel in distress Bishonen. (I now prepare to duck as I await several flying objects thrown my way from Giano and/or Bishonen). Paul August ☎ 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duck fast! For God's sake Paul! The stupid woman was claiming to be in Japan - in Japan they eat Fugu an alternative name for puffer fish - it is their principal, and best known delicacy, any dedicated student of Japan (or indeed any urbane person anywhere) would know that! I was seeing if she was interested in Japan. Of course she hadn't a clue. She was nearer Toronto than Tokyo it was another of her lies. I then invited you all to explain to her what a puffer fish is - but no. Now, along come the Colorado gang and we have death threats. Does anyone actually read the diffs and the edit summaries above. Fugu/Puffer Fish is no more dangerous than the semi-raw steaks full of parasites that the Americans think macho to eat, of that foul smelling rotten tinned fish that so delights the Swedes. EE's problem was she wanted to edit and converse beyond her capabilities, but was intellectually unable. She refused to take polite hints, and ignored the less polite, and then became bitter and now she complains - who mixes in a crowd where they are clearly not wanted? She is going to have a very difficult life but that is not my problem. Oh and Fred? are you really a retired lawyer - conveyancing perhaps? Giano | talk 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of shocked at Fred's suggestion. Please think twice. You may caution an editor but to ban one of the most brilliant wikipedians is a shame and great loss to Wikipedia, because Giano is irreplacable here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the talk page, but I really think that Giano's most severe efforts were not in any way taunting nor out of line. Every attempt was being made to get some peace. Polite requests had not worked. Reasoning had not worked. Giano tried satire (and I see no threats at all but the threat of (appropriate) blocking). That's not taunting EE to come back and play: it's attempting, within bounds, I think, to make EE find the experience distasteful. It's a last resort, but a last resort he was driven to by the unrelenting goonishness of EE's actions. A block of Giano would be far beyong the pale, in my opinion. Geogre 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This suggestion is patently absurd. From everything I've read EE's behaviour was extremely rude, abusive, disruptive and displayed a quite callous disregard for anyone elses feelings other than her own. I find it quite understandable that Giano and Bishonen should respond with some barbed satirical comments and appear to have responded in a markedly restrained way considering the circumstances. If this had taken place in a physical room with EE behaving in such a way, would we expect them to completely turn the other cheek and humbly submit to it? No, we would expect them to defend themselves. In the context of wikipedia this clearly needs to be measured and proportionate. I understand the general guidance is to be courteous and friendly, but how should one deal with someone who is repeatedly behaving in such a reprehensible manner and will not be ignored? This dictionary's complaints procedure seems very slow and quite ineffective considering the number of sockpuppets this user is alleged to have used. Essentially, Giano and Bishonen were the victims of these incidents, and if they were to receive cautions and serve bans this would serve only to demonstrates that these procedures are lacking the principle of Equity. Cut them some slack. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unfamiliar with the procedures here, can the arbitrator retract this suggestion? How long until it is put into force? Is there a vote? Would a petition carry any weight? I'd be grateful if someone would point me in the right direction. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're unfamiliar? - so am I, first time for all of us. I suspect the arbitrator here (Fred) has rather lost the plot (perhaps they should take regular tests after a certain age - poor old things) - it's rather like coming up before a judge who awards the death penalty for a driver doing 32 in a 30 limit but while doing so witnesses a serious crime and reports it, and is then penalised. Great though isn't it - he thinks they cannot bann Eternal but can bann me. I suppose I shall have to give in and go on the Arb-com myself eventually and solve these issues. Thanks for your concern though. Giano | talk 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The arbitors vote on things over in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Proposed decision, which only they are supposed to edit. As of yet, only two have voted on this remedy... Fred for and Dmcdevit against. There's been some discussion of this on the proposed decision talk page too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement in this case whatsoever, but based on what I have seen this would be a very undesirable move. Based on everything I've read, the purpose of any blockings/bannings is supposed to be to ameliorate problems so we can create an encyclopedia. Even apart from the provocation involved, implementing a one-month block beginning sometime in August against a long-time quality user, based on a single edit that occurred in early June, would be directly counter to that principle. Newyorkbrad 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Silly, in the extreme" (Paul August), "patently absurd" (Mcginnly). I think everything I could have thought of saying about this proposition from Fred Bauder has already been said by someone else. I find it offensive, and it is clearly counterproductive. The same thing is true for the caution against Bishonen. Both suggestions just serve to piss off two of Wikipedia's best authors. up+land 08:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one begin a vote of no confidence in a member of the arbitration committee. Giano | talk 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One certainly doesn't do that when one is a subject of a pending case, warranted or otherwise. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, folks. Seriously, Fred was mistaken, in my view, in making the motion, but this is a workshop and not a decision. It's a preliminary draft. I understand Giano's taking umbrage, and Bishonen too, but there's no profit in letting Fred's preliminary idea work under anyone's skin. Geogre 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is a seriously STUPID idea-"Hey ArbComm! Let's ban one of the best and most respected editors here for minor lapses of civility!" Small wonder this project is hemmoraging talent faster than Tsarevich Alexei at a body-piercing convention. --4.100.68.238 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Alias R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Geogre, you're mistaken, those proposals of which you speak are not drafts or preliminary ideas. They were migrated upstairs from this workshop to the arbitrators' "proposed decicions" page a while back. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well if I were running this hearing, I would have ordered a retrial - and held the jurors in contempt of court - as they have either fallen asleep in the loo - or gone missing in some other way. They have volunteered for this, not been pressed - so no excuses please - Mr. Bauder, as chairman of the jury, can you explain the absence of your colleagues? Giano | talk 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This, ah, "aggressive taunting": did you all examine EE's first traumatized and distraught response? And EE's second, even more traumatized and distraught response? I'm shocked and disgusted! (Not.) Banning Giano for a month, well, Giano more than deserves a vacation, and I'm not at all sure that a Wikipopmangacruftopedia (sired by hamsters and elderberries) deserves Giano; meanwhile, the crassness of such a ban has considerable humor value. -- Hoary 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, fancy seeing you here! That is indeed very observant of you , I had never noticed those edits before. I wouldn't worry too much about me though. Of course this is all very stressful, and I shall probably have to have a couple of months in "The Priory" to recover. Its a funny sort of case though, the Arbitrators seem to have disappeared (Lanzerote or Benidorm I expect) - I think, I shall take over and preside myself very shortly if no one turns up Giano | talk 06:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So where is that jury anyway? I bet they are out hunting kangaroos, or playing on the tennis court.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered becoming an Arbitrator, Ghostie? - I think you would be an improvement - in as much as at least you are here - I'm sure you can apply sound logic too - so how about it? We just need two more and we can try the case ourselves - any suggestions for the other two? Giano | talk 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZzzzzZZ... Oh! Pardon G, I fell asleep. First let's ask the ARBComm, if they are not using this trial, may we borrow it for a while? Then let's just randomly pick two good Wikipedes sound and true. It cant be any worse than the current system.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, moan, moan, moan, wiki's going to the dogs, isn't it, why don't you two fuddy-duddies give it a rest? The arbs have been at the WikiMania meetup, probably, and on holiday and so on. It's August. What month was it when you fell asleep? Bishonen | talk 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Don't you call me a fuddy-duddy, I am very hurt by your gratuitous insults and taunts. FYI In many parts of the world it is not August but winter, Tony1 and co. are probably celebrating Christas on the piste as we speak Giano | talk 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other arbitrators are now voting on this case and I was disappointed to see another vote in favor of this remedy (two more have voted against it, 2-to-3 against at the moment). The evidence I have presented as a non-involved user in another, unrelated ArbComm case [link omitted here to avoid giving extra publicity to the appalling record in that case] confirms that I have no toleration for "aggressive taunting with a suggestion of death" -- but this case involving a single edit by Giano three months ago is hardly the right place to emphasize that principle, and banning a "non-problem user" "pour encourager les autres" is counter to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any great confidence in arbitratorial interest in the workshop page, having seen some examples of information supplied here ignored, so I've posted a comment on User talk:Charles Matthews instead. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Eternal Equinox placed on probation[edit]

4) Eternal Equinox is placed on probation for one year. Should he/she, editing under any username disrupt any page he/she may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Eternal Equinox placed on attack parole[edit]

5) Eternal Equinox is placed on personal attack parole for one year. Should he/she, editing under any username engage in personal attacks he/she may be banned for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Should Eternal Equinox return[edit]

1) Should Eternal Equinox return before the end of the one year ban any accounts created may be banned indefinitely, but the ban shall not be reset. After the end of the one year ban Eternal Equinox may create one new account to edit with if she or he wishes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for this obsessive editor Fred Bauder 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban not used Fred Bauder 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: