After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may 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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

2) 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Responding to the Arbitration Committee

3) Editors are expected to respond reasonably and in good faith to questions and concerns raised by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

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 prohibited.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Eyrian

1) Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry in an apparent attempt to game the system ([1], [2]). He has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his actions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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.

Eyrian desysopped

1) Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. Eyrian may apply to have them reinstated at any time by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means.

Support:

Kirill 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that this applies to the person not user accounts. So a RFA under a different user name is not permitted. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I don't understand why he would be restricted from the "usual means". Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian banned

2) Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia until he provides the Committee with a satisfactory explanation regarding this matter.

Support:

Kirill 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to the person not an user account. Please contact ArbCom prior to editing under any user name. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

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.

As I understand it, the following are passed:

Principles 3.1.1-3.1.4 (i.e., them all) pass.
The finding of fact that Eyrian has engaged in abusive sock puppetry in an attempt to game the system (3.2.1) passes.
All proposed remedies for this case:

Eyrian is desysopped with no option to re-request via RfA
Eyrian is banned until a satisfactory explanation as to his behaviour is provided to the Committee

..are passed.

Anthøny 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Close; everything passes. James F. (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Close Fred Bauder (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Close. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]