Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 he 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, five new Arbitrators are assumed recused (Morven, Smoddy, Filiocht, Mackensen, SimonP) and two have explicitely unrecused themselves (Dmcdevit, Charles Matthews), and 8 are active (Fred, Epopt, Jdforrester, Jayjg, Theresa, Neutrality, Mindspillage, Raul654), so 6 votes is 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[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Edit warring harmful[edit]

1) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a ban under the Three revert rule, see also Wikipedia:Edit war.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators only[edit]

2) Given the large and diverse body of Wikipedia administrators, controversial articles which are the subject of sustained and intractable edit wars may be protected but continue to be edited by administrators.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. "May"? Yes, in the meaning of "can", but not in the meaning of "should". James F. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James has it right, and admins have no more "rights" than any others when it comes to content. Dmcdevit·t 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. May be something here, but for hammering out in the future. Charles Matthews 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per Charles Matthews. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) - Agree with Charles[reply]

Protection considered harmful[edit]

3) Article protection undermines Wikipedia's collaborative nature and should be used sparingly and temporarily. Repeated protections of a single article is disruptive, and editors who repeatedly cause protections due to edit warring may be blocked for disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is the article Winter Soldier Investigation which continues to be the subject of and edit war between TDC (talk · contribs) and an anonymous editor who uses a variable EarthLink address, see page history. anon's version, TDC's version

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring[edit]

2) Both TDC and the anonymous editor 165.247.xxx have engaged in multiple egregious edit wars leading to many blocks under 3RR and repeated protection of Winter Soldier Investigation.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Winter Soldier Investigation protected[edit]

1) Winter Soldier Investigation shall be protected but may be edited by administrators. A template shall be created and used showing that status and a page created listing articles in this status. It may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether it remains the focus of edit warriors. Protection may be extended to the talk page if necessary.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Third choice.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC) See below.[reply]
  2. As above. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 15:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Winter Soldier Investigation protected with working version[edit]

1.1) Winter Soldier Investigation shall be protected but a working, unprotected version should be created, and administrators should synchronise the article with the working page as and when appropriate. A template shall be created and used showing that status and a page created listing articles in this status. It may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether it remains the focus of edit warriors. Protection may be extended to the talk page if necessary.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC) This is how the www.wikipedia.org template on meta is edited, for instance.[reply]
  2. Worth a try Fred Bauder 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nothing wrong with documenting copyvios on a talk page (one issue in this matter that is not really negotiable). Otherwise parties should discuss. Charles Matthews 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. A curious idea, but does not seeem to get at what seems to be the root of the problem. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to semi-protection[edit]

2) When Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy is implemented Winter Soldier Investigation, shall, instead of the above, be semi-protected. If necessary, the semi-protection may be extended to associated articles by any administrator, or by request to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, but us being able to reopen the case is always true; no need to put it in. James F. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. tied to TDC's ban below; if the ban doesn't pass, this vote becomes "oppose" ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Semi-protection is explicitly for vandalism only. This will prevent all anons and new users from editing indefinitely. Admins can use semi-protection at their discretion if this particular anon is evading his ban. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Dmcdevit. Charles Matthews 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Dmcdevit. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) - Agree with Dmcdevit[reply]
Abstain:

Banned from Winter Soldier Investigation[edit]

3) TDC (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned for one year from editing Winter Soldier Investigation.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

3.1) Anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) is banned for one year from editing Winter Soldier Investigation.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Revert parole[edit]

4) TDC (talk · contribs) is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not happy with this type of remedy - mentoring/supervision better for users with specialised interests. Charles Matthews 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per Charles. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) - agree with Charles[reply]
  4. Per Charles. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

4.1) Anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If you don't log in, your right to edit is harder to defend. Charles Matthews 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. On reconsideration - punishing one party worse because he is an anon doesn't sit right with me. Raul654 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Raul654. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Abstain:

Good behavior[edit]

5) If, in three months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Ban violations[edit]

1) If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) edits Winter Soldier Investigation, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Parole violations[edit]

2) If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

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. Everything that will pass has. Close. Dmcdevit·t 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. close ➥the Epopt 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close (the IP number editor has been discussing this with me on my User Talk, and has said nothing about defying a ban). Charles Matthews 10:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose closing in the absence of an effective remedy to deal with anonymous ip. Fred Bauder 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think banning him from the article for a year (remedy 3.1) is an effective remedy? Raul654 07:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037708620"