→Checkuser requests for Giovanni33 socks: SPA's are experts in their chosen fields |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 604: | Line 604: | ||
::In the case editors have made contributions which aren't questioned, why should they be removed just because the rest of the editors/admins on the page, particularly those still there, have failed to comply with basic policy? '''Reject.''' [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
::In the case editors have made contributions which aren't questioned, why should they be removed just because the rest of the editors/admins on the page, particularly those still there, have failed to comply with basic policy? '''Reject.''' [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Oppose''' this is simply an attempt to cripple the content of the article because AfD's have failed in the past. It's also beyond the scope of this case. -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
'''Oppose''' this is simply an attempt to cripple the content of the article because AfD's have failed in the past. It's also beyond the scope of this case. -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Strong Oppose''' This is really the heart of the whole issue, and why a right-wing clique of editors who think wikipedia is a political battle field want to get me, along with every other left-winger in the Northern California area, banned: political content of this article. That is why we see this article up for Afd every few months by the same hard core conservatives. Failure to accomplish that they then attack the article in a way that is very much like a kind of vandalism, by blanking whole sections over and over, starting edit-wars in the hopes to get the article locked in a vandalized state. Failure to accomplish that they want to stub the article. These are all Afd attempts by other means. It's obvious that the content of the article's claims by notable experts in their field, i.e. the that U.S. has engaged in State Terrorism, is an idea that is so offensive to some that they can't deal with it in a rational manner Wikipedia norms notwithstanding. Yes, I'm being blunt here but its a truth that has to be said.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Proposed remedies=== |
===Proposed remedies=== |
Revision as of 19:48, 13 May 2008
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.
Motions and requests by the parties
Improper exclusion of involved parties
1) For obvious reasons I motion that the following users be officially made parties to this case, and provided with the same links to this case as the other involved parties have been:
- Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs)
- Supergreenred (talk · contribs)
- DrGabriela (talk · contribs)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Links to this case have now been provided to these accounts.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- This has been a serious procedural error. These parties were not informed that the arbitration was accepted. See Dr.Gabriela's talk page where he is not even aware that the request for arbitration was even accepted.[[1]] We cannot just assume that these accounts are in fact socks before a fair hearing and judgement process has been completed. BernardL (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- A further comment. On May 4 I see that 8 notices of the opening of the arbitration were sent but none of these notices were sent to accounts alleged as sockpuppets.[[2]] I wonder how this can be explained?BernardL (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Motion for User Check Requested
2) Per evidence page discussion and request by Merzbow, I request a user check on Rafaelfinger's edit here: [3]Or any of his latest edits from 2:25 to 2:45:[4] What we want to find out if this user edited from their home comcast ISP, or a wireless device during these times. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Kirill Lokshin
Proposed principles
Compliance
1) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Sockpuppetry
2) 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.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Who's who
3) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question. To what extent have procedures for assessment been thoroughly scrutinized and discussed by the community of administrators to safeguard against the possibility that someone innocent may be mistakenly condemned? What policies and procedures have been worked out beforehand, specifically regarding behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry, to ensure procedural fairness?BernardL (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, but apply carefully here. As a principle this is certainly true. However it should be applied with some level of discretion and discrimination in this case. Those presenting this case have swept up every IP and account that has agreed with Giovanni and lives in Northern California. It is possible that all of these are related to Giovanni, but any number of them might also not be. If one or more of the accounts in question have not been truly disruptive (beyond agreeing with Giovanni, which is not in and of itself disruptive), and if they actively protest their innocence the committee should be open to the possibility that not everyone caught up in this dragnet is a sock.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the only thing they do is agree with Giovanni (i.e. SPA), then it makes no difference whether they are disruptive. The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni. But even the Northern Cal thing is a red herring. Bottom line is they are Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets who seem to have a single purpose here and it's not build the encyclopedia, but rather support Giovanni. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni If you didn't know any better and only went by these SPA accounts, you would think northern california was full of left wing peacenick democrats, wouldnt you? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting fact: In 2003, california had a population of 35 million, with over 50% of those online. The closest state was New York with 19 million population and 58% online. That would mean that California had more people online, then people in New York City, on or offline. To take a segment, and state that all of their users that would agree with Giovanni33, are Giovanni33, could be seen as worse then a large segment IP block. Effectively lumping 100's of people into one Giovanni --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni If you didn't know any better and only went by these SPA accounts, you would think northern california was full of left wing peacenick democrats, wouldnt you? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of the accounts seem to be nothing more than SPA's of some kind, I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case though with DrGabriela based on their contributions. That user has contributed to some medical related articles, and I don't think Giovanni has ever had anything to do with those sort of subjects - i.e. agreeing with Giovanni is not the only thing this user does. DrGabriela may be a Giovanni sock or some other sock or SPA, but it is possible that they are not and it's a fact that that user has asserted innocence. If they are to be banned, we need a specific finding that they are a sock or meatpuppet of Giovanni or a disruptive SPA. I'm just asking for some precision here with respect to findings of fact (I think the imprecision stems somewhat from the nature of the evidence). If the committee believes that every account named in this case is a sock or meatpuppet of Giovanni then they ought to say that, otherwise what is the basis for indef blocking (presumably the remedy that would be applied) those accounts once the case is over?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but this probably goes without saying; there's no way ArbCom is going to sanction any account without specifically saying why. (And BTW it is five minutes of work to pick some random non-FA medical article, and add two lines to it one pulls from an online search). - Merzbow (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well what do you know, my suspicions proved correct. "Doctor" Gabriela's addition to Blocking antibody here was copied word-for-word out of a medical dictionary, available online here. Another edit of hers I picked at random also is a similar copyvio. Going to add this to evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec with Merzbow's last edit, principle of what I'm saying here still applies, new info re: the Gabriela account is revealing though). Sure, and maybe that's what happened with the DrGabriela account, but possibly not. I'm only harping on this because throughout this case there seems to have been a bit of an assumption that all of the accounts were in fact socks (e.g. not informing them that a case had been filed at first, and never informing them that it had been opened). Maybe they all are, that's quite possible. Right now the only FoF from Kirill (and I assume he's writing for the committee because I think he often lays out workshop findings) relates strictly to Giovanni, not the other accounts. If and when this is rectified then there's no problem, but that's why I'm commenting here and on Kirill's FoF 1. DHeyward's first FoF is actually more along the lines of what I think is required if the committee's position is that all of the accounts are sock or meatpuppets.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well what do you know, my suspicions proved correct. "Doctor" Gabriela's addition to Blocking antibody here was copied word-for-word out of a medical dictionary, available online here. Another edit of hers I picked at random also is a similar copyvio. Going to add this to evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but this probably goes without saying; there's no way ArbCom is going to sanction any account without specifically saying why. (And BTW it is five minutes of work to pick some random non-FA medical article, and add two lines to it one pulls from an online search). - Merzbow (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the only thing they do is agree with Giovanni (i.e. SPA), then it makes no difference whether they are disruptive. The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni. But even the Northern Cal thing is a red herring. Bottom line is they are Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets who seem to have a single purpose here and it's not build the encyclopedia, but rather support Giovanni. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::So the history of the DrGabriela account is especially troubling. When it first appeared, Giovanni denied and protested that he did not know them. It was simply a random person who agreed with him. Then they accidentally edited using an IP and it was the same as Giovanni's. Giovanni then changes his story and says it's his wife. It is tedious to try and discern whether DrGabriela is actually a separate person but doesn't matter though because it would clearly qualify as a meat puppet. The lies about the affiliation between Gabriela/Giovanni echo familiarly as Giovanni protests he does not know these other random SPAs. --DHeyward (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2008 Oops, there are so many socks I seem to have confused this one with BelindaGong. My mistake. --DHeyward (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to BernardL concern, I must remind that WP is not a justice system. Arbcomm will mostly address the question if the activities by Giovanni and his alleged puppets cause more harm than good for the project. "Doctor Gabrella" looks very much as puppet. Her knowledge of biology does not go beyond the high school level judging from her edits, even if the texts were not copied from the other sites.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Merzbow's new evidence re: DrGabriela is particularly telling. I'm still glad I brought up my concerns with that account though because in the end better evidence was produced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to BernardL concern, I must remind that WP is not a justice system. Arbcomm will mostly address the question if the activities by Giovanni and his alleged puppets cause more harm than good for the project. "Doctor Gabrella" looks very much as puppet. Her knowledge of biology does not go beyond the high school level judging from her edits, even if the texts were not copied from the other sites.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's suppose that Merzbow's evidence concerning Gabriela's plagiarism does amount to concrete evidence that the Gabriela account is inauthentic. It seems to me that the desperation to railroad Giovanni has impaired the objectivity of editors so much that they cannot even bring themselves to consider, let alone mention, an explanation that seems quite plausible- namely that Gabriela could be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user:Stoneputothesky. The shared interest in the Philippines certainly suggests this. So I would suggest that first, the techies look closely at the locations for the IP's that were specifically used during the episode two nights ago when Giovanni and Gabriela appeared at the same time on the "Allegations" talkpage. Does a location match on that particular editing session match the locations of previous editing session(s) that were supposedly identified as Northern California? I know next to nothing about this techie stuff but i do know that anonymizers exist- is there something about them that could suggest that the account was editing in Northern California when he was in reality editing from somewhere else?BernardL (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- FYI Wikipedia blocks anonymisers. I don't know how, but apparently anyone using one can't edit a page. And Stone's sockpuppetry, AFAIK, was not very sophisticated - the accounts were marked by checkuser as "likely" or "confirmed". So unless he's suddenly turned into a technical wizz-kid and is able to trick the checkuser system into thinking he's editing over 6,000 miles away from Taiwan, it's highly unlikely the accounts are his sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, well they obviously can be anyone's. But it's worth noting that DrGabriella has helped Giovanni out on a number of pages, whereas I can't see that account doing the same for Stone. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Giovanni33
1) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry or some other form of proxy editing prohibited by policy.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think you're going to have to have a FoF that says "the following accounts are sock or meatpuppets of Giovanni33." The evidence in this case is arguably stronger for some accounts than others, and some are protesting their innocence. The status quo as of right now is that all of these accounts are separate. If the committee decides that some or all of the accounts described here are Giovanni socks then you need a finding of fact to that effect. I do not think it acceptable to simply state "Giovanni33 has repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry or some other form of proxy editing" and then block all of the accounts that have been mentioned in this case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why this is written as just sockpuppetry. There is overwhelming evidence that they are at least meatpuppets and I don't think policy distinguishes much between the two. Checkuser is inconclusive for the specific checks that checkuser does. But we are not automatons that can only respond to the 1/0 result of a program nor is policy dependant on the program. In fact, checkuser is discouraged for such obvious cases. --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I have investigated this in detail, and feel it is likely that Giovanni33 is either socking, or else recruiting proxies who support the same content objectives. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question. As a result of your investigation, you stated you had too many doubts, and that several other administrators familiar with my style had contacted you, believing these accounts were not my puppets, resulting in your unblocking of them. So, has anything happened since that time to change the level of doubt you had? Can you confirm who are these "several admins" familiar with my writing style, who spoke to you in private, and perhaps they can weigh in again in some manner?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Follow up question. If there is still doubt, then is the evidence really sufficient for one to draw a definite conclusion? I'm referring to the recent allegations, not the ones from years ago, of course.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although I do not wish to speak for Jehochman, he was making a decision to indef ban you by himself - which is difficult, even if you have outside input. But I think the Arbitrators will be more willing to look into the evidence as they know they're part of a team. John Smith's (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, I want them to see the same evidence that Jehochman saw from his correspondence with several other admins, which produced his doubt and unblocked all the accounts. Obviously my hope is that the ArbCom will have enough similar doubts not to block me, based on the evidence (exculpatory evidence I'm still working on).Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Giovanni33 banned
1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree with the arguments for indefinite/self-renewing ban.Ultramarine (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Should be indefinite, given his block log, but I understand that ArbCom almost never hands out indefinite bans in the absence of a prior active indefinite community ban. - Merzbow (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support if the finding of fact is merely one of edit-warring. If it also includes puppetry then he should be indef banned given he was let off an indef block on the promise he didn't use puppets again. John Smith's (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would be good. Need to get rid of the socks too, though William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regretfully, I concur that an action of this type is necessary; support proposal. Anthøny 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:DHeyward
Proposed principles
SPA, Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets
1) Single-Purpose Accounts that all edit a small set of related articles with substanitally the same edits or supportive comments and actions may be treated as Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets and in the case where those edits are contentious or support edit warring, they can be treated as abusive meatpuppets or sockpuppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as too vague. Editors who come from the same culture are going to tend to discuss and edit in a similar manner, and this will open the door to endless witchhunts against specialists. -- Kendrick7talk 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- oppose this principle is not supported by any of the 5 pillars and is in direct contravention of WP:AGF TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Giovanni33's SPA Meat and Sock puppets
1) User:BelindaGong, User:Professor33, User:NeoOne, User:Freethinker99, User:CleanSocks, User:FionaS, User:HK30, User:Kecik, User:Mercury2001, User:MikaM, User:NPOV77, User:RTS, User:Rafaelsfingers, User:Supergreenred, and the seemingly endless list of Northern California IP whose only substantial contributions are to support Giovanni33's views in the nafrrow set of articles he edits, are all abusive SPA Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- So we're banning every like-minded liberal in the most liberal part of the country from editing which articles exactly? Anti-Federalist articles? Really? I don't like where this is going, and I can't support purging whole geographies of editors because they happen to share the same views. It would be like responding to an edit war on lobsters by banning everyone from Maine. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is a SPA account
2) User:Giovanni33 is a SPA account for editing articles critical of the United States. The person editing from this account likely uses other accounts to edit other article topics and is a prolific puppet master. He uses SPAs to hide his Sockpuppet editing patterns.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Partial support. Giovanni33 and his sock puppets' interest and editing has varied over time. His earlier sock puppet farm involved articles such as Christianity and Hitler.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Giovanni33 has made statements alluding to this being a spa account when he was asked to contribute elsewhere in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion removed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop for the full text, as well as my justification for removing it. Regards, Anthøny 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It is worth noting that what user:Biophys describes as the promotion of "fringe" views regarding the perception of the atomic bombing of Japan as an instance of state terrorism are advanced by numerous leading professors at leading universities. For example: Mark Selden (phd Yale, prof history and sociology Binghamton), Richard Falk (current U.N. Special Rapporteur, prof. International Law, Princeton), C.A.J. Coady (prof Philosophy, Melbourne), Douglas Lackey (phd Yale, City University NY), Igor Primoratz (prof philosophy, Hebrew University Jerusalem), Michael Walzer (prof philosophy Princeton), Walden Bello (prof Sociology, Uni Philippines), Michael Mann (phd Oxford, prof Sociology UCLA),Howard Zinn (prof Polisci Boston), Alvin Y. So (Prof and Head Social Sciences, Hong Kong), AMONG OTHERS! BernardL (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, the Allies of World War II were simply a bunch of terrorists, just like Osama bin Laden? No, war =/= terrorism. But we are not going to conduct content disputes here. Right?Biophys (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. Giovanni33 has made statements alluding to this being a spa account when he was asked to contribute elsewhere in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right we are not. It suffices to know that there are numerous sources, per above, that meet the requirement of wp:V and wp:RS and that your statement to the effect that this is a fringe view was not true.BernardL (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial. Disagree with the first sentence (Giovanni does have substantial editing experience at articles unrelated to the U.S.), but agree with the latter two sentences. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. First statement is factually incorrect on the face given Giovanni's edit history—whatever else one might say his is clearly not a single purpose account (a large number of his edits have to do with Christianity, Hitler, and Mao). The remainder is completely conjectural. This finding of fact is not supported by any evidence, and it needs to be.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial support. Giovanni's interests are focused on a relative few POVs, but he is not SPA simply for the purpose of criticising the US. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial support. I agree that all alleged sockpuppets are SPAs, but Giovanni33 has 2,000+ main space edits, even though a significant part of them are reverts.Biophys (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Giovanni33 Topic Banned
1) Giovanni33 and all SPA accounts that have essentially supported his position that resolve to Northern California IPs are topic banned from articles relating to U.S. Foreign Policy or terrorism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Giovanni33 has used sock puppets for whatever topics he is interested in at a particular time so remedies regarding him should not be topic limited.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this will work, as it will simply displace Giovanni on to other topics and cause trouble there. His general behaviour needs further action. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Future Giovanni33 Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets
2) Future Giovanni Sock or Meatpuppets that substantially conform to these previous puppets will be blocked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. General ppposition to the policies of the Federal government is very widespread in San Fransisco, Berkeley, and nearby areas, as this was the epicenter of a major counter-culture movement mere decades ago (q.v. Counterculture of the 1960s), and anyone who watches the evening news or, dare I say, watches South Park knows there's is still a cultural groupthink amongst this population in this regard. If we're going to ban all Northern Californian liberals, I have to think you'll be coming for us Massachusetts liberals next. -- Kendrick7talk 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33's 1RR restriction is extended to indefinite
3) Giovanni33's 1RR restriction is extended to indefinite as his SPA meat/sock puppets were used to violate this previous remedy. He may appeal for a change to this after 1 year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support not as an alternative to a ban, but as an indefinite restriction that would be tacked onto any ban of a definite time period. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with Merzbow that an extension of his revert parole should be in addition to any other remedy. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is indefinitely banned
4) Giovanni33 is indefinitely banned. He may appeal for a change to this after 1 year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed as the other enforcements seem tedious. Fighting all his socks is more tedious than the value of his contributions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support ban for one year per arguments above.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should be indefinite, given his block log, but I understand that ArbCom almost never hands out indefinite bans in the absence of a prior active indefinite community ban. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support depending on the circumstances. If the finding of fact is that Giovanni has abused sock/meatpuppets, it should be indefinite. If he has merely engaged in edit-warring, one year plus extended revert parole.
- Merzbow, Giovanni was originally indef blocked for puppetry. He was unblocked on the strict promise that he wouldn't engage in that again. So in those circumstances and his block log/editing behaviour I think the Committee would consider an indef block if they decided he was using sock/meatpuppets. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Checkuser requests for Giovanni33 socks
1) The threshold for initiating a checkuser for Giovanni33 socks is either a new account or a SPA account that edits in support of Giovanni33's previous positions. For the purpose of the topic ban, "Confirmed" will be an IP that matched previously or that resolves to Northern California
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but I now note that there is a brand-new editor editing from Honolulu using Supergreenred's dial-up ISP. Has all of the markers of a G33 SPA, and probably is him dialing long-distance, but at some point we need to try something new also. That is why I exhort all editors to pay attention to my two 1RR remedies below. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- A lower threshold for Checkuser requests is fine, but I don't think we can tell the Checkusers how to do their job which is what the second sentence basically does. They are chosen for their judgment and should be permitted to exercise it, rather than being forced to "confirm" as a sock anything which "resolves to Northern California" (geographically speaking, that's also far too vague for me). Simply make it easier to file checkuser requests for apparent socks or SPA's (though even then we should still not use it for fishing, only when there is really cause for concern) and then leave the decision up to the Checkuser as we normally would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- comment the term 'SPA' is being thrown around a lot and I believe that many people hold many different definitions of the term. Any rulings and findings should articulate a clear definition of what they mean when/if they use the term. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Merzbow
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.
1RR per 24h on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for all editors
1) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States may not be reverted more than once in 24 hours by any single editor (excepting reverts of obvious vandalism).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I endorse this. All editors should not revert more than once within 24-hours. Edit-warring is always bad but this is esp. true for this article that is prone to heated and emotional POV's getting in the way of rational though (exhibited through edit-warring). By a strict 1RR for all editors, we eliminate this problem, and force editors to use the talk page to gain consensus first. Although I add that it's many of the established editors who should know better who have been the main problem. The pattern is that they are not active in the discussion by keep coming back to revert 3 times based on only their own POV, against consensus. So its not a problem of so-called SPA accounts in my view.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Merzbow's proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. I believe such a restriction is active on Israel/Palestine articles, so there is precedent. This article is the main locus of the dispute, and has again come under heavy reverting by SPAs. If nothing else, this will constrict the ability of SPAs to harm the article, since they are clearly more willing to push 3RR than are established editors. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Modification. Simply changed the title of the remedy to distinguish it from the one below. Did not change the text of the remedy. - Merzbow (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not think this resolves anything at all. This article caused too much trouble over the years and wasted too much effort by good wikipedians who edit warred instead of doing something useful. Eight deletion discussions, Arbcomm proceedings including this one... Just rename it Covert military actions of the United States and protect all redirects. This will be good for the project.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Endorse in response to comments below. This certainly does not hurt, unless a lot of puppets will appear.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- 'endorse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably good for the page. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. A good idea, not strictly under the purview of this case as originally conceived but dropping in a ruling on this would be useful. Quite frankly I doubt that many editors of the page, from either side, would disagree. No one particularly cares for the edit warring. I think there would also have to be a formal enforcement mechanism and/or remedy for this as well. Presumably violations could be brought to arbitration enforcement where uninvolved admins could block users who violate this rule. Blocks could be logged at the page for this case. Incidentally from what I've seen it is both SPA's and established editors who have edit warred on the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree If you look at the September 11 enforcement it is full of blatant administrative abuse. You have incredibly biased involved admins such as Raul654 blocking users selectively, basically squelching one side in an edit war.
- The editors who have been booted from the page are protesting, but despite all the evidence of administrative abuse, after three weeks, no one has done anything.
- This is EXACTLY what will happen here, the deletionist editors, who are admins more than the inclusionists, will use this as a tool to crush opposing views.
- Admin William M Connolley, for example, has abused his admin powers repeatedly on this page, protecting this page and blocking editors during an edit war. Based on William M Connolley administrative abuse in the past, he and other admins will block editors he is edit warring with.
- This rule will absolutely not be followed fairly on both sides. Inclusionist (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This remedy appears to be beyond the scope of the initial case. Such wide ranging rulings should not be made unless/until all current (and recent past) editors have been formally notified of these procedings and allowed a chance to provide input.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No within scope of case. It is further an end run around a complete participation by all editors on the article. By deciding article questions without allowing all participants to be aware of the discussions. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. I believe such a restriction is active on Israel/Palestine articles, so there is precedent. This article is the main locus of the dispute, and has again come under heavy reverting by SPAs. If nothing else, this will constrict the ability of SPAs to harm the article, since they are clearly more willing to push 3RR than are established editors. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1RR per week on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for new editors
2) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States may not be reverted more than once per week by any individual editor who does not have substantial prior editing history on other Wikipedia articles (excepting reverts of obvious vandalism).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree but the article should be given indefinite or long semi-protection. Wikipedia has over 2,000 indefinitely semi-protected mainspace articles.[5] Few of them has attracted so many sock puppets and SPA IPs as this article. The Bogdanov Affair article mentioned below has an indefinite semi-protection.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This is in addition to the previous 1RR/24h remedy for all editors, which should not be controversial. Now I imagine this will be a bit more controversial, but this article has come under such sustained attack by SPAs I don't see any alternative to being creative like this. I note that there is in fact precedent for differential treatment of new editors - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair - per this remedy, "All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are indefinitely banned from editing Bogdanov Affair... Any new user account or anonymous IP which commences editing of the article without substantial editing of other articles shall be presumed to be a participant in the external controversy." I'm not proposing a ban like that, merely an editing restriction severe enough to prevent SPAs from continually causing the article to be locked, but allowing them some activity and of course unlimited activity on talk. - Merzbow (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not a bad idea, but perhaps unnecessarily bureaucratic. The above 1RR per day restriction for everyone will already cut down on edit warring. If new accounts which seem to be SPA's are showing up to the page, warning them sternly and then pursuing them through Checkuser or other means might be the better way to go. If these accounts are only editing these articles and are pushing the boundaries of a 1RR per day restriction (assuming that is implemented) I think that's enough to take action against them, so long as they have been warned first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- endorse proposed remedy: "warning them sternly" is a joke and utterly ineffective William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps my previous comment was too ambiguous. I only said they should be warned first, before "taking action against them," which is to say blocking them. We cannot assume that every relatively new account that edits that article is automatically a sock and block them without any sort of notice whatsoever. A simple warning to them about their behavior should proceed any sort of block. I don't see any problem with that, and that's all I was saying.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Allow editing only by established users.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there should be no two tier system of rules for new users and established users. This suggestion goes against what wikipedia is, an open system that anyone can edit.
- Who will decide what "substantial prior editing", is? Why, Merboz and his administrative friends!
- Merzbow proposes this because as a deletionist, he knows that the majority of the editors who delete are more established editors, whereas most of the inclusionist have been pushed off or booted from wikipedia. More established editors = POV Merzbow supports (i.e. deletion of article) . Strong oppose.
- I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States which will more fully address the problems this page has. I don't think two proposals, at the very buried at the end of a arbitration about another person, addresses this page's problems. Inclusionist (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, not within scope of case. This effectively becomes an abuse of the system, by not informing or allowing a complete discussion on the article by all participants of the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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:
Proposals by User:I Write Stuff
Proposed principles
Merzbow & Supergreenred
1) Supergreenred is more likely a sockpuppet of Merzbow, then of Giovanni33, sharing linguistic traits, and never having a single shared edit time, as demonstrated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This isn't a principle, it's a proposed finding of fact which you repeat below.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree with BigT. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Not a principle or a fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Misdirection
2) Sockpuppet checks initiated by editors in a region, against other editors in the same region, can be easily manipulated.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported. Vague, and I don't see how a check can be manipulated more if it is requested by someone from "a region" whatever that may be. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since Merzbow has access to the same ISP's and has demonstrated his knowledge of computer networking, specifically to circumvent RFCU. Since Merzbow at any time can get a dialup account and pretend to be a sockpuppet of Giovanni, since the RFCU would point to Giovanni's region, which happens to be Merzbow's region as well. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported in any basis of fact. Sockpuppets are determined by people. The people use tools and their brains. Location is only a piece of evidence. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Supergreenred & Merzbow 2
1) Supergreenred is most likely a sockpuppet of Merzbow as demonstrated by the evidence presented by myself and Giovanni33.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Giovanni33's linguistic evidence, based on one edit by Supergreenred after the RfA started, is quite obviously faked as per Merzbow's reply on the evidence page. Such very glaring linguistic similarities between Supergreenred and Merzbow should have been present also before the RfA started if not faked. But from then there are none. Is instead yet more evidence of why Giovanni33 should not edit Wikipedia.Ultramarine (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Opposed. I don't think the evidence bears that out. When Giovanni presented his "evidence" against Merzbow, he specifically said "I am not making any accusations based on such a specious methodology." Rather he was trying to demonstrate that that kind of evidence was not useful. Your editing pattern analysis is not nearly enough to conclude that Supergreenred is Merzbow, and personally I think that conclusion is highly implausible on its face.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I have presented further evidence. The fact that Merzbow claims Giovanni33 has a shared edit time, made to specifically cheat the system, is less "proof" then the new evidence that shows Supergreenred has never edited at the same time as Merzbow. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported. The evidence presented so far is far from being conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's not conclusive, just as the evidence presented against me is not conclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence against you is far more conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah so you are saying it's not conclusive. That was my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence against you is far more conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite amusing. I never said the editing timelines were enough to prove sockpuppetry, I simply said they support the charge. What would disprove the charge would be large overlaps of several hours per day, almost every day, which is what sees when one compares Ultramarine and G33. - Merzbow (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You already have been show to use the same terms as Supergreenred, and have never shared a single editing session, and you edit a lot. It is more convincing then the evidence you presented against Giovanni that he is Supergreenred, which consisted of using "its" instead of "it's" --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- IWS, at this time I must point out that you yourself are very likely to be a sockpuppet of indef-banned SevenOfDiamonds (see here) and are on very shaky ground with your borderline disruptive/pointy contributions to this ArbCom case. That is all. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen your accusation, and would welcome any inquiry you may wish to file. Now it seems you have failed to argue on reason, and instead decide to engage in ad hominem attacks. Not surprising I guess. If you find your evidence to be "suitable" then I am sure the same evidence presented in return is as well. You have access to the sockpuppet's ISP, you share linguistic similarities and you never edit when they do. Just to add, you made up "evidence" in that thread that was not true, the Times1 Times2 thing, unless you are looking at the "refname" according to the link created, in which case it seems Wikipedia has duped you. A single source, reused, through "ref name" always appears as "refname#" with the number incrementally rising as the tag is used more often. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you ran a checkuser? Inclusionist (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- IWS, at this time I must point out that you yourself are very likely to be a sockpuppet of indef-banned SevenOfDiamonds (see here) and are on very shaky ground with your borderline disruptive/pointy contributions to this ArbCom case. That is all. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You already have been show to use the same terms as Supergreenred, and have never shared a single editing session, and you edit a lot. It is more convincing then the evidence you presented against Giovanni that he is Supergreenred, which consisted of using "its" instead of "it's" --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gaming the system
2) Editors in disputes have frequently attempted to frame, or mislead administrators in sockpuppet checks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:ScienceApologist_blocked_indefinitely
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, it does happen. But it's a bit like saying "people use sockpuppets" - I don't think that really helps this case. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except that Merzbow is in the same geographic region as Giovanni33, making it easier to fake such evidence. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It does raise a legitimate points that should raise reasonable doubt about other possible explanations for some of the mimicry. A lot of itis cherry picking and confirmation bias, but some of it could be outright impersonation, as well. If someone wanted to frame me, it would not be hard given I'm vulnerable to the charge per previous conduct.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposal by User:Raymond arritt
Proposed remedies
1) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States will be reduced to a stub and carefully rewritten following policy and consensus. In the rewriting of the article, a restriction of one revert per week shall apply to each editor. Administrators will be given broad discretion to apply remedies for tendentious editing, disruptive editing, attempts to give undue weight, improper sourcing, or other problems that may arise in the course of rewriting the article.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This proposal is well beyond the scope of the initial arbitration and has the possibility of impacting editors who have not been properly notified to allow their participation.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- How do you suppose we can rewrite this article, according to policy, when the ones who oppose its existence do so for personal reasons? Do you consider consensus, the shear numbers, or is consensus only those discussing the issues on policy. The issue with edit warring, if you read over the talk page, is not grounded in policy, it is grounded in personal opinion. For instance, JzG has reverted, removing the Japan section, based on his personal opinion that the WP:RS and WP:V sources, stating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were state terrorism, should be instead stating it was war terrorism. If consensus forms agreeing with JzG, do we then state the sources say it was war terrorism? I think the bigger issues of this article and policy need to be discussed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wholehearted support - It is about time we bring back some common sense and normalcy to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - A more drastic alternative to my proposals, but one I have no problem with. - Merzbow (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. You are asking the arbitrators to make a (rather unilateral) content decision which they generally do not do. Also, as TheRedPenOfDoom points out, this issue has not even been discussed in this case (no evidence presented, involved parties not contacted) so presenting a sweeping content remedy on an article is wholly inappropriate. As far as I know Raymond and Jossi have not been particularly involved in this article, so I don't know how they can be so sure about the appropriate course of action (discussion is actually proceeding in a fairly reasonable manner on the article talk page, and I see no rationale for stubbing it - you have not even explained why it should be stubbed nor presented evidence that this is a needed course of action - since there are no real BLP problems or anything like that). The arbs already had a chance to take on this article in the WM Connolley proposed case, and now another case about the article is before the committee. This case is about one editor's possible sockpuppetry. Simple because he has worked on this article does not mean one can smuggle in a remedy which basically has the effect of blanking an article that a lot of people don't like, but which recently easily survived an AfD. I'm confident the arbs will pass on this, and if they want to address the article head on they can accept the case which was recently filed so all of the relevant parties have a chance to offer evidence, thoughts, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- endorse: excellent idea, and also a good general principle. But Raymond... when did you become an arbitrator? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I'm glad we have capable people willing to serve as arbitrators, and I'm glad I'm not one of them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the case editors have made contributions which aren't questioned, why should they be removed just because the rest of the editors/admins on the page, particularly those still there, have failed to comply with basic policy? Reject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this is simply an attempt to cripple the content of the article because AfD's have failed in the past. It's also beyond the scope of this case. -- Kendrick7talk 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Strong Oppose This is really the heart of the whole issue, and why a right-wing clique of editors who think wikipedia is a political battle field want to get me, along with every other left-winger in the Northern California area, banned: political content of this article. That is why we see this article up for Afd every few months by the same hard core conservatives. Failure to accomplish that they then attack the article in a way that is very much like a kind of vandalism, by blanking whole sections over and over, starting edit-wars in the hopes to get the article locked in a vandalized state. Failure to accomplish that they want to stub the article. These are all Afd attempts by other means. It's obvious that the content of the article's claims by notable experts in their field, i.e. the that U.S. has engaged in State Terrorism, is an idea that is so offensive to some that they can't deal with it in a rational manner Wikipedia norms notwithstanding. Yes, I'm being blunt here but its a truth that has to be said.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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:
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: