This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
RFCU
1) RFCU is requested, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence#Suspicion of sockpuppetry w/ disruptive edit-warring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Temporary "Rules of Conduct"
1) Until the conclusion of this case, a set of temporary rules of conduct against uncooperative editing on Liancourt Rocks have been imposed (see Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct). These can be enforced by blocks.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agreed. I also believe that further rules of conduct for the talk page would be helpful - my opinion is that the root of the problem lies in disruptions to the consensus making process, and that the revert wars are a symptom of this. Phonemonkey 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Wikimachine article ban
2) Until the conclusion of this case, Wikimachine ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Liancourt Rocks.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Recent edits ( [1]) and his behaviour and style of argumentation here have shown Wikimachine is currently incapable of engaging in a constructive editing process on that article. Others may have to be banned too, but he is probably the most blatant troublemaker. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Revert restriction
3) Motion to restrict reverts by any editor to once every 24 hours per involved article (excluding obvious vandalism). All reverts must accompany a note on the respective talk pages detailing reasons.
3.1) Motion to restrict revert by involved editors to once every 24 hours per involved article (excluding obvious vandalism). All reverts must accompany a note on the respective talk pages detailing reasons.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed both 3 and 3.1, as I feel that this may include parties not named. See WP:ANI discussion- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Suspend Wikimachine's WP:SSP report
4) Until the conclusion of this case, Wikimachine's Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd) is suspended.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Wikimachine ( talk · contribs) submitted a suspected sockpuppet report [2] into WP:SSP on 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC). It includes three involved party members, Opp2, Phonemonkey and LactoseTI. A suspected socks matter among involved parties SHOULD be resolved in ongoing arbitration in the presence of Arbitrators. If such a "submarine tactics" is allowed, the effectiveness of arbitration will be damaged and marred seriously. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. -- Nightshadow28 14:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that any allegations of sockpuppetry on
Liancourt Rocks and related articles should be raised in the context of the pending arbitration rather than in other forums. I have commented on the SSP report accordingly.
Newyorkbrad 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've closed the SSP report. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the request is a seriously personal attack against each party especially Opp2, because it is based on poor evidence. I've proposed to Arbcom about this for Proposed findings of fact.-- Watermint 11:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- A related report, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2, filed by Wikimachine was declined by Deskana. -- Nightshadow28 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal is moot.
Newyorkbrad 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should I understand meaning of a word, "moot", like context of U.S. Law? According to the dictionary, "moot" is explained as a legal term that "the situation is already solved and it is not necessary to make a legal judgment." --
Nightshadow28 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nightshadow28; I believe he is referring to the fact that the proposal was to suspend the case. As it is now declined, this proposal is "moot" in the sense that it's meaningless to discuss suspending an already closed case. --Cheers,
Komdori 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand like that. -- Nightshadow28 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nightshadow28; I believe he is referring to the fact that the proposal was to suspend the case. As it is now declined, this proposal is "moot" in the sense that it's meaningless to discuss suspending an already closed case. --Cheers,
Komdori 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should I understand meaning of a word, "moot", like context of U.S. Law? According to the dictionary, "moot" is explained as a legal term that "the situation is already solved and it is not necessary to make a legal judgment." --
Nightshadow28 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Prohibit using {{sockpuppet}} template by involved parties, and remove all of them by a trusted user
5) Until the conclusion of this case, using {{sockpuppet}} template by involved parties is prohibited.
5-1) All {{sockpuppet}} should be removed by trusted user like an administrator.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Wikimachine applied sockpuppet template to some users,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] including within involved parties. Such an action does not contribute for fair arbitration. Because all Wikipedians can discuss in this workshop, and it will give a preconception for having third-opinion users. Such an action should be forbidden. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. --
Nightshadow28 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 5-1) All of templates were removed by User:Sarah and User:Gogo Dodo during the SSP discussion. -- Nightshadow28 07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal is moot, unless Wikimachine reinserts any tags, which would be very ill-advised. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikimachine applied sockpuppet template to some users,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] including within involved parties. Such an action does not contribute for fair arbitration. Because all Wikipedians can discuss in this workshop, and it will give a preconception for having third-opinion users. Such an action should be forbidden. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. --
Nightshadow28 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikimachine is continuing doing personal harassment against Opp2
1) It can be regarded as continuous personal harassment against Opp2 ( talk · contribs) cause the followings are enough to damage to good faith of Opp2.
- On this RfA/Evidence, Wikimachine ( talk · contribs)'s assumption is too emotional. He decides Opp2 is a sockpuppet master, the origin of revert-war ( here), a liar ( here) on poor evidence.
- On going Arbcom, Wikimachine's behavior against Opp2 is escalating further. He believes firmly that Opp2 is a puppet master. ( [12], [13], [14]), a POV editer [15]on poor evidence, too. Moreover, as mentioned above by Nightshadow28, Wikimachine requested SSP and RFCU. (His first request was this SSP).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support. His evidences are very poor. To exclude me, he is misusing the system of wikipedia.-- Opp2 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Good frend100 violate WP:CIVIL
2) Good friend100 ( talk · contribs) has been accused of his own incivility on this Arbitration/Evidence. (for example; here) In spite of he is continuing to misunderstand Wikipedia as a battleground ( [16]), and frequently violate Wikipedia:Civilty ( [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc.). Other users are often offended with Good friend100 ( talk · contribs)'s incivility attitude. ( [22])-- Watermint 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
RFCU report which does not include the involved parties
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Hello Wikipedians. I have already found some suspected sockpuppets of ReplayamongNN (or User:Bason0). They are all new registered users. But Bason0 is mentioned in Endroit's evidence. May I file a RFCU report which does not include the involved parties? Or should I propose in the workshop and request to the arbitrators?
- If you want to know my conviction, please see the history [23] in Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. It is too strange... -- Nightshadow28 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. We also can find several suspicious sockpuppets made by Bason0 on Korea-Japan related articles. For example, I'm sure panelequal3 who had engaged blatant edit-war on Sea of Japan is a sockpuppet for Bason0, too. Today, he had blocked 24hrs because of 3rr violation. I assume that all of sockpuppets are throwaway accounts for disruptive POV attack against Korea-Japan related articles like Liancourt Rocks. Pesonally, when we reqesut to noticeboard, should report to Request for IPcheck instead of RFCU. -- Watermint 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thank you for your advice. It seems that IPcheck is useful to be sure. I make a detailed text for explaining to everyone. If it is relevant text, it will make a everyone's consensus. -- Nightshadow28 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have noticed closing motion of the arbitration. Although my analysis may already be meaningless, I show it for keeping my words. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop#List of suspected sockpuppet of Bason0. It is worthy of probably requiring RFCU that a new registered user edits in the same expression of banned user repeatedly. I ask everyone for understanding of the checking for blocking these "socketpuppet" that exhaust the Wikipedia's editors. (I had thought that ReplayamongXX was throwaway accounts. But Replayamong23 ( talk · contribs) has edited on 19 October 2007 UTC. ReplayamongXX is obvious sockpuppet, so I might have to request blocking without RFCU...) -- Nightshadow28 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
RFCU
1) RFCU is requested, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence#Suspicion of sockpuppetry w/ disruptive edit-warring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Temporary "Rules of Conduct"
1) Until the conclusion of this case, a set of temporary rules of conduct against uncooperative editing on Liancourt Rocks have been imposed (see Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct). These can be enforced by blocks.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agreed. I also believe that further rules of conduct for the talk page would be helpful - my opinion is that the root of the problem lies in disruptions to the consensus making process, and that the revert wars are a symptom of this. Phonemonkey 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Wikimachine article ban
2) Until the conclusion of this case, Wikimachine ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Liancourt Rocks.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Recent edits ( [1]) and his behaviour and style of argumentation here have shown Wikimachine is currently incapable of engaging in a constructive editing process on that article. Others may have to be banned too, but he is probably the most blatant troublemaker. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Revert restriction
3) Motion to restrict reverts by any editor to once every 24 hours per involved article (excluding obvious vandalism). All reverts must accompany a note on the respective talk pages detailing reasons.
3.1) Motion to restrict revert by involved editors to once every 24 hours per involved article (excluding obvious vandalism). All reverts must accompany a note on the respective talk pages detailing reasons.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed both 3 and 3.1, as I feel that this may include parties not named. See WP:ANI discussion- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Suspend Wikimachine's WP:SSP report
4) Until the conclusion of this case, Wikimachine's Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd) is suspended.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Wikimachine ( talk · contribs) submitted a suspected sockpuppet report [2] into WP:SSP on 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC). It includes three involved party members, Opp2, Phonemonkey and LactoseTI. A suspected socks matter among involved parties SHOULD be resolved in ongoing arbitration in the presence of Arbitrators. If such a "submarine tactics" is allowed, the effectiveness of arbitration will be damaged and marred seriously. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. -- Nightshadow28 14:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that any allegations of sockpuppetry on
Liancourt Rocks and related articles should be raised in the context of the pending arbitration rather than in other forums. I have commented on the SSP report accordingly.
Newyorkbrad 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've closed the SSP report. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the request is a seriously personal attack against each party especially Opp2, because it is based on poor evidence. I've proposed to Arbcom about this for Proposed findings of fact.-- Watermint 11:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- A related report, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2, filed by Wikimachine was declined by Deskana. -- Nightshadow28 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal is moot.
Newyorkbrad 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should I understand meaning of a word, "moot", like context of U.S. Law? According to the dictionary, "moot" is explained as a legal term that "the situation is already solved and it is not necessary to make a legal judgment." --
Nightshadow28 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nightshadow28; I believe he is referring to the fact that the proposal was to suspend the case. As it is now declined, this proposal is "moot" in the sense that it's meaningless to discuss suspending an already closed case. --Cheers,
Komdori 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand like that. -- Nightshadow28 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nightshadow28; I believe he is referring to the fact that the proposal was to suspend the case. As it is now declined, this proposal is "moot" in the sense that it's meaningless to discuss suspending an already closed case. --Cheers,
Komdori 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should I understand meaning of a word, "moot", like context of U.S. Law? According to the dictionary, "moot" is explained as a legal term that "the situation is already solved and it is not necessary to make a legal judgment." --
Nightshadow28 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Prohibit using {{sockpuppet}} template by involved parties, and remove all of them by a trusted user
5) Until the conclusion of this case, using {{sockpuppet}} template by involved parties is prohibited.
5-1) All {{sockpuppet}} should be removed by trusted user like an administrator.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Wikimachine applied sockpuppet template to some users,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] including within involved parties. Such an action does not contribute for fair arbitration. Because all Wikipedians can discuss in this workshop, and it will give a preconception for having third-opinion users. Such an action should be forbidden. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. --
Nightshadow28 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 5-1) All of templates were removed by User:Sarah and User:Gogo Dodo during the SSP discussion. -- Nightshadow28 07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal is moot, unless Wikimachine reinserts any tags, which would be very ill-advised. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikimachine applied sockpuppet template to some users,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] including within involved parties. Such an action does not contribute for fair arbitration. Because all Wikipedians can discuss in this workshop, and it will give a preconception for having third-opinion users. Such an action should be forbidden. I want a everyone's (Arbitrators, parties and other Wikipedians) comment and agreement strongly. --
Nightshadow28 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikimachine is continuing doing personal harassment against Opp2
1) It can be regarded as continuous personal harassment against Opp2 ( talk · contribs) cause the followings are enough to damage to good faith of Opp2.
- On this RfA/Evidence, Wikimachine ( talk · contribs)'s assumption is too emotional. He decides Opp2 is a sockpuppet master, the origin of revert-war ( here), a liar ( here) on poor evidence.
- On going Arbcom, Wikimachine's behavior against Opp2 is escalating further. He believes firmly that Opp2 is a puppet master. ( [12], [13], [14]), a POV editer [15]on poor evidence, too. Moreover, as mentioned above by Nightshadow28, Wikimachine requested SSP and RFCU. (His first request was this SSP).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support. His evidences are very poor. To exclude me, he is misusing the system of wikipedia.-- Opp2 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Good frend100 violate WP:CIVIL
2) Good friend100 ( talk · contribs) has been accused of his own incivility on this Arbitration/Evidence. (for example; here) In spite of he is continuing to misunderstand Wikipedia as a battleground ( [16]), and frequently violate Wikipedia:Civilty ( [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc.). Other users are often offended with Good friend100 ( talk · contribs)'s incivility attitude. ( [22])-- Watermint 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
RFCU report which does not include the involved parties
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Hello Wikipedians. I have already found some suspected sockpuppets of ReplayamongNN (or User:Bason0). They are all new registered users. But Bason0 is mentioned in Endroit's evidence. May I file a RFCU report which does not include the involved parties? Or should I propose in the workshop and request to the arbitrators?
- If you want to know my conviction, please see the history [23] in Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. It is too strange... -- Nightshadow28 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. We also can find several suspicious sockpuppets made by Bason0 on Korea-Japan related articles. For example, I'm sure panelequal3 who had engaged blatant edit-war on Sea of Japan is a sockpuppet for Bason0, too. Today, he had blocked 24hrs because of 3rr violation. I assume that all of sockpuppets are throwaway accounts for disruptive POV attack against Korea-Japan related articles like Liancourt Rocks. Pesonally, when we reqesut to noticeboard, should report to Request for IPcheck instead of RFCU. -- Watermint 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thank you for your advice. It seems that IPcheck is useful to be sure. I make a detailed text for explaining to everyone. If it is relevant text, it will make a everyone's consensus. -- Nightshadow28 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have noticed closing motion of the arbitration. Although my analysis may already be meaningless, I show it for keeping my words. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop#List of suspected sockpuppet of Bason0. It is worthy of probably requiring RFCU that a new registered user edits in the same expression of banned user repeatedly. I ask everyone for understanding of the checking for blocking these "socketpuppet" that exhaust the Wikipedia's editors. (I had thought that ReplayamongXX was throwaway accounts. But Replayamong23 ( talk · contribs) has edited on 19 October 2007 UTC. ReplayamongXX is obvious sockpuppet, so I might have to request blocking without RFCU...) -- Nightshadow28 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: