Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/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, arbitrators may 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 they so choose. 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, 9 Arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 5 votes are 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.

Temporary revert parole[edit]

1) Enacted on 03:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus (talk · contribs), GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are placed on standard revert parole until the conclusion of this case. They are restricted to one content revert per page per day each, and may be blocked for 24 hours for each violation.

Support:
  1. See the recent edit war: [1]. Dmcdevit·t 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 10:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Professional conflicts and unprofessional conduct[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to wage a public relations campaign or a business dispute. Applicable policies include WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and WP:ADVERT.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

2) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Second choice)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Content judgment. It doesn't mean I don't agree with it, but that I'm wary of arbcom, and not a neutral editorial consensus, deciding it. The first sentence seems good enough. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Content ruling. Also, not a Principle, but a combined P/FoF.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not necessary to comment on substructures required in the article (history, composition, etc). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

3.1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (First choice)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban for disruption[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Who's who[edit]

5) In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Midnight Syndicate[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Participants in the dispute[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Skinny McGee[edit]

2.1) Skinny McGee edits with a negative bias towards Vargo [2]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I prefer conduct-, not content-related findings. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) With Dom.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not I think supported by the diff. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny McGee[edit]

2.1.1) Skinny McGee has engaged in edit warring [3] and other disruptive nehavior, including sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skinny McGee) and incivility [4].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

GuardianZ[edit]

2.2) GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits with a negative bias towards Edward Douglas [5], See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) With Dom.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GuardianZ[edit]

2.2.1) GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring [6] and other disruptive behavior including incivility (evidence, 2) and sockpuppetry ([[7]]).

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Peacekpr[edit]

2.3) 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 [8]. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Midsyndicate[edit]

2.4) 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 [9]. His sole edit to Midnight Syndicate cuts Vargo out completely [10]. 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) [11], [12] [13].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lizstjames[edit]

2.5) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dionyseus[edit]

2.6) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established editor [14] with an essentially clean record [15] who in general edits in areas not closely related to Midnight Syndicate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. some fairly low level edit warring does not negate a generally solid history. - SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. overall record is good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but not being blocked much or at all doesn't give one a "clean record".[reply]
  2. Per James. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. seems to have missed the part where he's been edit warring, which justifies the article ban. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dionyseus[edit]

2.6.1) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring at Midnight Syndicate. [16] [17] [18] [19]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

According to Midnight Syndicate[edit]

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 [20]. http://www.midnightsyndicate.com

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. So what? The problem is the behaviors, not the POVs. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Content finding, orbitum dictum.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Joseph Vargo[edit]

4) The story according to Jospeh Vargo is presented at monolithgraphics.com, myspace and legionofthenight.com (legionofthenight.com is to be differentiated from legionsofthenight.com a site run by the current group).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Content finding. Another orbiter dictum, too.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary sources as references[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Unused to support a remedy that I can see.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Relevance? Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
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.

Editing bans at Midnight Syndicate[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban for disruption[edit]

2) No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Removal of poorly sourced material[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This seems like a Pandora's box I'm not comfortable with. Bans ought to help fix the problem. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. primary source material is often a useful reference. It does need to be treated differently than a reliable secondary source, with the text of the article being clear that a certain fact is true only according to X. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Eurgh. Per above.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Article ban[edit]

4) The article Midnight Syndicate and its talk page are banned from Wikipedia for one month. They are to be stubbed and protected for that amount of time, then restored. Editing bans related to the article will run concurrently with the article ban unless otherwise specified.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. no need for this Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by indefinite block[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by ban[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by reversion[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't like special treatment of anon IPs. Banned editor language redundant, as is special purpose editor language. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Already true in the case of banned editors (and SPAs may be banned per #2), and anonymous editors as a category if they don't fit either of those, don't deserve mistreatment. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) As above.[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement by article ban[edit]

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.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Notable group that users not involved in the controversy may be interested in editing. Fred Bauder 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Let's don't punish information. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) As above.[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Principle Vote
1 7-0
2 7-0
4 6-0
5 7-0
6 7-0
Finding of fact Vote
1 7-0
2 7-0
2.1.1 5-0
2.2.1 5-0
2.3 7-0
2.4 7-0
2.5 7-0
2.6.1 6-0
Proposed remedy Vote
1 7-0
2 7-0
Proposed enforcement Vote
1 7-0
2 7-0


All other proposals fail. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a majority of 5, it appears that all significant findings and remedies that have a chance of passing have passed.

Vote[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. Support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close Charles Matthews 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. - SimonP 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Proposed_decision&oldid=744039117"