Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop

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, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. 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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Professional conflicts and unprofessional conduct

1) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to wage a public relations campaign or a business dispute. Rather than achieving any of the disputants' desired goals, such efforts are likely to become an embarrassment to the individuals who circumvent site policies while they attempt to pursue unencyclopedic agendas. Applicable policies include WP:COI, WP:VANITY, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and WP:ADVERT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ok, but a bit elaborate. Fred Bauder 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit as you see fit. I drafted that as something I could cite in future low-level dispute resolutions when I ask editors to realize how counterproductive it is to air dirty laundry at one of the world's most prominent websites. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

1) In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See WP:COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted Fred Bauder 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject. As applied to this controversy, NPOV requires that both the history of the establishment of the group and its current composition and characteristics be included in the article in an appropriate way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

4) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally involved in a controversy from editing an article about it. However such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive, especially if advocates of both sides of a controversy weigh in. In such cases participants in an external controversy may be banned from editing the affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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:

Midnight Syndicate

1) Midnight Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a musical group, is the locus of the dispute, with extended edit warring by users who are believed to be involved in the group, both past and present, a major bone of contention being how a past associate, Joseph Vargo, was to be treated in the article.

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Participants in the dispute

2) Users involved in the dispute include: Skinny McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Peacekpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Indigo1032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and others including anonymous ips. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lizstjames, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Midsyndicate, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#WP:COI.2C_WP:VANITY.2C_and_WP:NOT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. I wish there were a cleaner way to describe the accounts and IPs represented here. Durova^Charge! 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blooferlady

2.1) Blooferlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has identified herself as a long-time associate of Joseph Vargo [1]. Her edits are positively biased toward Vargo [2], but she has not edited since 2005 and did not edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to User:Newyorkbrad, the reason why this finding is necessary is because me and User:Skinny McGee have presented evidence that suggests User:Blooferlady is User:GuardianZ. Dionyseus 08:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought I'm striking through that endorsement because of the phrase and did not edit war. I've been looking into that account, which appears to have originally edited as User:70.187.67.246, and while the contributions don't constitute edit warring per se it's mostly blanking vandalism, spam, vanity, and disruption. I'll provide details soon in an evidence addendum. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that a finding is needed one way or the other for an account that hasn't edited in over a year. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Skinny McGee

2.2) Skinny McGee edits with a negative bias towards Vargo [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While I won't deny that I do, in fact, have a negative bias towards Vargo due to comments he has made on his website and in the press regarding Edward Douglas and Midnight Syndicate, I have tried very hard not to let that bias creep into my editing of the article and I believe I have succeeded. I strive to properly credit Vargo, Douglas, and Goszka for their contributions to the group's success. I think a review of my contributions would support that. - Skinny McGee 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skinny McGee, she has tried to ensure that Vargo is properly credited for his contributions, that edit diff is one example of this. As for User:Durova, I have never seen Skinny McGee make a personal attack. Dionyseus 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being? Durova^Charge! 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just a sentence fragment. My whole comment (on the Midnight Syndicate talk page) was "Yes, we could do that. I suppose it would probably prove that Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being who has been defaming Midnight Syndicate every chance he gets." This was in response to what I viewed as another in a series of veiled threats by GuardianZ to add content that she felt would be embarrassing to Midnight Syndicate (such as information from her legion site). Also, I was frustrated because we were in a cycle where I had to explain the same things to GuardianZ over and over and she would keep on bringing them up again as if we hadn't discussed them already. Anyway, in my comment I was referring to a series of interviews with Joseph Vargo in which he calls Douglas every name in the book and, in general, acts in a most unbecoming fashion (I would be happy to provide links if anyone's interested). I'll admit my language was a bit strong and, looking back, I probably shouldn't have said it. If you review my editing history, though, I think you'll find that comments like that are the exception, not the norm. - Skinny McGee 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse. Skinny McGee's edits express not only bias but also personal attacks against Vargo. The tone of this editor's contributions, which frequently read like press releases for the band, are the least encyclopedic among the case's three principal disputants. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

GuardianZ

2.3) GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits with a negative bias towards Edward Douglas [4], See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oroboros 1

2.4) Oroboros 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified by checkuser as a sockpuppet of GuardianZ. Oroboros 1 edited with a positive bias toward Vargo [5]. Oroboros 1 has not edited since being blocked as a sockpuppet on November 20, 2006.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Peacekpr

2.5) Peacekpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created November 22, 2006, seem to have been created for investigation of the editors of Midnight Syndicate first edit. The results are archived at User talk:Peacekpr/archive1 with discussion at User talk:Peacekpr/archive2. Peacekpr is obviously an experienced Wikipedian, but has chosen to be anonymous with respect to any other accounts [6]. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Midsyndicate

2.6) Midsyndicate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) identified himself shortly after creation of the account as Edward Douglas, together with Gavin Goszka, one of the two current members of the group. On Feburary 11, 2006, in a post to an administrator, he charged that Joseph Vargo, a principal in a competitor, Nox Arcana, had been editing Midnight Syndicate [7]. His sole edit to Midnight Syndicate cuts Vargo out completely [8]. He probably made a few edits as 152.163.100.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [9], [10] [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lizstjames

2.7) Lizstjames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sole edit removes the history of the group in favor of the current group, lists her homepage in her member listing at horror.com as http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/ A Liz St. James - Entity Productions is credited on the site and mentioned in a clevescene.com story as a full time employee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indigo1032

2.8) Indigo1032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a few edits [12] "jealous former band member" "jealous former band member on his "hate" site" [13] [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus

2.9) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something missing in this one? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dionyseus

2.10) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established editor[15] with an essentially clean record[16] who in general edits in areas not closely related to the Midnight Syndicate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Midnight Syndicate

3) The story according to Goszka and Douglas is presented in the Cleveland Scene article "Scream Kings: Midnight Syndicate is the top act in horror music. What's really scary: These guys seem so normal." by Jason Bracelin, May 25, 2005 [17]. http://www.midnightsyndicate.com

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The cover story in Haunted Attraction Magazine probably provides a more complete picture. Article by Leonard Pickel, "Midnight Syndicate: Setting the Mood for an Industry", June 2006, Pg. 24-28, 38-41. - Skinny McGee 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

According to Joseph Vargo

4) monolithgraphics.com myspace legionofthenight.com (legionofthenight.com is to be differentiated from legionsofthenight.com a site run by the current group).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of primary sources as references

5) In some instances primary sources have been used as references, Midnight_Syndicate#References, see, for example, this radio interview

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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.

Editing bans at Midnight Syndicate

1) GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus (talk · contribs) is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed by jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC). Conflicts of interest are obvious.

Comment by parties:

I believe this is way too harsh on me and user:Skinny McGee, we have clearly allowed for Joseph Vargo to be credited for what he should be credited for, we have tried to explain to user:GuardianZ that we should not use Joseph Vargo's website as a source, but user:GuardianZ refuses to compromise and has personally attacked user:Skinny McGee several times. user:Skinny McGee has probably contributed to the article more than anyone else, to restrict her from editing that article would be a disservice to Wikipedia. Dionyseus 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This solution looks unproblematic regarding Skinny McGee and GuardianZ. I'm less certain about Dionyseus - the best I hope is that this editor takes a more critical look at the side of this dispute that (he?) has been supporting. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm less sure about Dionyseus also, but (he?) has plenty of other interests around Wikipedia, and has been involved in too much of the edit warring at Midnight Syndicate. Perhaps a shorter term ban for Dionyseus there? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter might work. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, trying on three months for size. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon invited me to contribute more to the suggested remedies so I propose adding and related topics to the end of this proposal. During my research I found this edit[18] which inserts the name of Joseph Vargo's band Nox Arcana into a popular culture list.[19] The same band is also mentioned at Necronomicon.[20] After a few chin-scratching moments I decided they were probably fan entries. Special:Whatlinkshere/Midnight_Syndicate&limit=500&from=0 has some non-DR transclusions. At the risk of WP:BEANS, this slightly broader wording would give my mop a clean bucket after the case closes. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Might be too broad, though. Keep in mind that the only way we have to enforce these bans is by the threat of blocks ("edit in this article and we'll block you outright."). When I was looking into the finding of fact above about Dionyseus, I had to fudge the language a bit and refer to "areas not closely related" to Midnight Syndicate, because Dionyseus is into gaming, and Midnight Syndicate apparently has some game music credits. This rule would make those articles off limits. Would it also make predecessors, spinoffs, or knockoffs of those games off limits? Unless we see a pattern of bad behavior, I'm thinking we should keep our remedies more focused. In that way, the community doesn't have to keep an eye on the editors in question -- just the article. Easier all around. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban on band members, former members, etc. editing the article per general WP:COI principle. It should take only a low level of misconduct to trigger such a ban, and that appears to definitely exist. Remedy should specify whether the ban includes the talk page. A talk page ban should require a higher level of misconduct but maybe that exists too. 67.117.130.181 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

2) No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate under any username or anonymous ip may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. It is acceptable to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if you identify yourself and the role you play or played in the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is "disruption" the right reason here? Is the implication that excessive WP:COI is by nature disruptive? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A person with a conflict of interest could edit without disruption. Fred Bauder 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this remedy supposed to apply only to disruptive edits? It doesn't say that in the text. I'm in favor of a broad ban on any COI edits to the article but either way, the scope should be made clear. 67.117.130.181 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The way I read it, people who have COI on this topic may contribute freely at the article talk page but may no longer submit any edits directly to the article text. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with Durova's suggestion. Dionyseus 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I like it, but seems one sided. Suggest extending to include Nox Arcana and Monolith Graphics. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced material

3) Controversial material based on primary sources, personal recollections or interviews of persons associated now or in the past with Midnight Syndicate, may be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. Personal recollections can be removed as unverifiable per existing policy. Interviews in established publications aren't necessarily poor sources - a critical reader understands that people who make public statements sometimes misrepresent events, which itself can be notable. Let's allow the normal Wikipedia approach of presenting all notable sides of a controversy in a neutral manner once the people who have a stake in putting spin on the issues stop disrupting the article. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd want notability to be established through independent, established publications for both the interview and the controversy that it comments on, before it could be used. Otherwise it turns into a battle of the fan sites. 67.117.130.181 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an amended version of this proposal would shift focus to the question of hosting. One of the bones of contention has been that an otherwise acceptable source was cited as a secondhand reference hosted at a disputed website. Since most of the disputants have professional experience or contacts in sound engineering, it's realistic to question whether that reference may have been tainted by later alterations. Per WP:V and WP:RS, the door should probably remain open to a better documented version of that class of citation such as an official transcript from the radio station's archives. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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:

Enforcement by indefinite block

1) Any single purpose user account which edits Midnight Syndicate or associated articles in a disruptive manner by making aggressive biased edits may be blocked indefinitely. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by ban

2) Users who also edit other articles who edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles in a disruptive manner by making aggressive biased edits may be banned from editing Midnight Syndicate and may be blocked for an appropriate period of time should they violate the ban. All bans and blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by reversion

3) Tendentious, aggressive, biased edits by anonymous ips, single purpose editors, or banned editors may be reverted without limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The above is grammatically confusing and should be written more precisely. 67.117.130.181 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed a couple of punctuation marks. The principle looks fine to me. Durova^Charge! 07:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your version looks less ambiguous to me. The old version had other possible interpretations. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 08:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Existing policy already allows reverting banned editors without limit, I think, making that provision redundant. There's some tradition in places like AfD that anonymous IP's with enough edit history should be treated like other editors, and the provision for single purpose editors should take care of anonymous IP's without many edits. So the sanction on anonymous IP's seems either unjustified or redundant depending on the IP's edit history. I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. That leaves single purpose editors, which is fine, though maybe slightly redundant with the earlier remedy (if that one passes) that disruptive SPA's can be blocked. 67.117.130.181 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a preventive step against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Any admin or experienced editor would check an IP's edit history prior to reversion - there are quite a few of them such as yourself who contribute broadly as unregistered Wikipedians. I don't think this finding would bias anyone against that. Instead it would relieve the burden of WP:AGF regarding dubious edits from new IPs and new accounts. The key matter is edit history, not registration. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by article ban

4) If editors having conflict of interest engage in a continuing pattern of disruptive or promotional editing, then arbcom may order the article itself to be banned (stubbed and protected) for up to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, inspired by [21]. 67.117.130.181 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: