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.

Template

1)

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:

Template

1)

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:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• In view of the current status of the article, and the seeming departure of User:Kingofmann from Wikipedia, I request input from the parties and other editors on whether the case is moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

• to CarbonLifeForm: If some of us accepted after the possible departure, don't assume we knew it at the time. I'm still a bit hazy on the timeline here.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• I doubt he has permanently departed (nothing in his statement says that) and in any event he will wish his concerns to be addressed because he thinks them important. "Persuaded but against his will, he's of the same opinion still". CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Acceptance by the Arbitrators' for hearing this matter was based on interest in BLP/NPOV^[1]. In keeping with that line of thought, this probably could progress without the initiating party, however input and explanation equally from the "opposing sides” would be extremely difficult as one entire side (Initiating Party) is presumed gone. That fact, I would think, would render any BLP/NPOV privacy crossover arguments impotent and insufficient enough to aid ArbCom in clarifying any inconsistencies for which they accepted. --Hu12 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But some of the arbitrators accepted after the initiator "departed" (if he did). CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• What issues are being arbitrated? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed findings of fact

Sockpuppetry by User:Kingofmann

1) User:Kingofmann has a history of sockpuppetry. Two of his previous accounts, User:DukeofAntwerp and User:Drewdaily, and possibly a third User:Freddulany, contributed to an AfD: [2][3][4] [5]. Two of his accounts contributed to a Request for Arbitration, e.g. [6] [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

More to the point, it's abusive sockpuppetry, and quite deliberate. Assumption of good faith might lead to not worrying about one such instance, but it appears there were certainly two, and probably four. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Long term abusive sockpuppetry--Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Legal threats by User:Kingofmann

2) User:Kingofmann has made unjust accusations of libel: [8] [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Strike "unjust", and you'll be more in ArbCom territory. I'm not sure, though, that I agree with the idea that describing something as libel is a legal threat. I mean, "You're speeding" isn't a legal threat; "You're speeding and I'm going to call the police" is a legal threat. "I'll sue you for libel" is a legal threat. "I have taken the issue to Wikipedia", as far as I can tell in this context, meant this very arbitration case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

User:Kingofmann was aware of Wikipedia:No_legal_threats prior to above edit summary statements. [10]--Hu12 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not for the Arbitration Committee to decide. Daniel (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the Arbitration Committee isn't a court of law, and has no place to be saying that the "accusations of libel" are "unjust". That is for a court to decide. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Block User:Kingofmann

1) User:Kingofmann is blocked for <insert a suitable time period here>.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I read that as final statement in this arbitration. I believe, from his history, that he will return using a different name and that he will embellish the statement under "Pretender". CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with CarbonLifeForm that there is a real risk of Howe returning to "steer" any reference to his claim into a more favourable position. --Heraldic (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Kingofmann may have left: "Final statement" in which case this is one of two simplest solutions. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close

2) This case is closed with no action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think the deletion of the article negates the need for any arbitration. --Heraldic (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Kingofmann may have left: "Final statement" in which case this is one of two simplest solutions. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Principles

1) Self-raising flour should be wetted and consumed as soon as possible.

Kingofmann wants respect and money without the concommitant flak.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) NPOV trumps BLP

• NPOV trumps BLP where the original data comes from the subject, save where there is real genuine fear of physical danger arising

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

1) Parties are urged to talk on talk page before going to arbitration. Kingofmann did not do this here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incivility by Kingofmann

2) {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.

1) that new account creation be disabled for 12 months and that on his return (if any) KingofMann be monitored by Duke of Walton for 12 months. PROPOSED CarbonLifeForm (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:

Proposed Principles

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:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:

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:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Is it possible to lock just the Pretender section of the Lord of Mann article? --Heraldic (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no technical method to do so, but you may suggest that the arbitrators make a motion or temporary injunction to that effect. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Arbitrators and administrators could ban editors (or particular editors) from editing an article or section of one but I doubt it is a good idea. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: