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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Temporary editing restrictions at John Kerry
1) Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing John Kerry until a final decision is made in this case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Has a long history of edit warring here. His edit warring has led to page protections very recently. It needs a temporary solution. Dmcdevit· t 05:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree. If you look at Rex's First ArbCom case, there was a temp injuction because "This is based on his churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits:". Well here is the exact same case. If you look at Mr. Tibb's evidence, Rex has basically caused the Kerry article to grind to a halt over whether "bandage" and "minor" should be used in the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. And these are all in just the 4 weeks since he came back...and these aren't even all of the reverts to "minor" or "superficial". It's caused 3 protections of the page and it basically stopped all other discussion. I know he said he won't edit it until this is done, but I think we need to codify it. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Mr. Tibbs 10:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good proposal, but I expanded on it in (1.1) below, to cover articles other than
John Kerry.
Szyslak (
[
+t,
+c,
+m,
+e ]) 12:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
1.1) Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from making edits related to the politics of the United States until a final decision is made in this case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This goes a little farther than
Dmcdevit's excellent proposal. Rex has edited - and edit warred on - articles other than
John Kerry, especially in the events leading up to the three previous arbitration cases:
Rex 1,
2 and
3. How does his promise to abstain from editing the Kerry article stop him from revert warring and POV pushing at another article? I didn't include "history" as well as "politics" in this proposal because I noticed he's done work on military history, particularly in
Massachusetts (cf.
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts), though others may change this if they feel it necessary. I also added an enforcement provision.
Szyslak (
[
+t,
+c,
+m,
+e ]) 12:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. I'll second that. I just don't want to see the "self-imposed exile" thing work again. Need to make this permanent or at least through the end of the proceedings. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- This goes a little farther than
Dmcdevit's excellent proposal. Rex has edited - and edit warred on - articles other than
John Kerry, especially in the events leading up to the three previous arbitration cases:
Rex 1,
2 and
3. How does his promise to abstain from editing the Kerry article stop him from revert warring and POV pushing at another article? I didn't include "history" as well as "politics" in this proposal because I noticed he's done work on military history, particularly in
Massachusetts (cf.
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts), though others may change this if they feel it necessary. I also added an enforcement provision.
Szyslak (
- Comment by others:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Violation of Consensus Guidelines
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) has continiously violated the consensus by insisting that the consensus on the John Kerry article was "invalid". His reasons were that the consensus side had not "proved anything", even though there were multiple sources that confirmed the use of the words "bandage" and "wound" to describe Kerry's injury. Despite several votes that showed that he was a vote of 1 against a vote of 8 or 9, he continually tried to mock and condemn the consensus. Evidence presented by Mr. Tibbs and me both show the wanton disregard for a valid consensus. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Violation of The 3 revert rule
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) has continually violated the revert rules of Wikipedia through all of the cases against him. In his case, he's violating the 3 revert rule *and* all of the previous arbcom decisions against him, all of which have had anti-revert provisions in them. Even if the provisions have lapsed (and some have), it's still a continuing problem that obviously hasn't been solved. As Mr. Tibb's evidence shows, Rex found a sneaky way around the 3 revert rule. Instead of out and out reverting someone, he picked a version from a List of versions that he had developed and then just reverted to that instead. The only reason why it was caught is that in this diff, Rex accidentally used the version number. You can see in Mr. Tibb's evidence that Rex often posted the exact same versions. On Nov. 4th, example, he reverted to the same version 4 times. He would change a word here or there so it wouldn't count as a revert even though it was a revert. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Probable use of sockpuppets
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) possibly used sockpuppets to vandalize Woohookitty on the night of November 14th, 2005. Here is the evidence. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- It seems to me that "possible" isn't the best choice of words here. If Rex071404 certainly or probably used sockpuppets to vandalize the page User:Woohookitty, then the arbcom ought to rule on the issue. If Rex071404 only possibly vandalized the page User:Woohookitty, then the arbcom doesn't need to rule on the issue, because any number of other Wikipedia users other than Rex071404 possibly vandalized the page User:Woohookitty, and if it was one of them, then the arbcom ought not to rule on the issue in this arbitration case. Furthermore, that Rex071404 vandalized the page User:Woohookitty should be a finding of fact, not a proposed principle. NatusRoma 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Temporary editing restrictions at John Kerry
1) Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing John Kerry until a final decision is made in this case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Has a long history of edit warring here. His edit warring has led to page protections very recently. It needs a temporary solution. Dmcdevit· t 05:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree. If you look at Rex's First ArbCom case, there was a temp injuction because "This is based on his churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits:". Well here is the exact same case. If you look at Mr. Tibb's evidence, Rex has basically caused the Kerry article to grind to a halt over whether "bandage" and "minor" should be used in the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. And these are all in just the 4 weeks since he came back...and these aren't even all of the reverts to "minor" or "superficial". It's caused 3 protections of the page and it basically stopped all other discussion. I know he said he won't edit it until this is done, but I think we need to codify it. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Mr. Tibbs 10:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good proposal, but I expanded on it in (1.1) below, to cover articles other than
John Kerry.
Szyslak (
[
+t,
+c,
+m,
+e ]) 12:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
1.1) Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from making edits related to the politics of the United States until a final decision is made in this case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This goes a little farther than
Dmcdevit's excellent proposal. Rex has edited - and edit warred on - articles other than
John Kerry, especially in the events leading up to the three previous arbitration cases:
Rex 1,
2 and
3. How does his promise to abstain from editing the Kerry article stop him from revert warring and POV pushing at another article? I didn't include "history" as well as "politics" in this proposal because I noticed he's done work on military history, particularly in
Massachusetts (cf.
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts), though others may change this if they feel it necessary. I also added an enforcement provision.
Szyslak (
[
+t,
+c,
+m,
+e ]) 12:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. I'll second that. I just don't want to see the "self-imposed exile" thing work again. Need to make this permanent or at least through the end of the proceedings. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- This goes a little farther than
Dmcdevit's excellent proposal. Rex has edited - and edit warred on - articles other than
John Kerry, especially in the events leading up to the three previous arbitration cases:
Rex 1,
2 and
3. How does his promise to abstain from editing the Kerry article stop him from revert warring and POV pushing at another article? I didn't include "history" as well as "politics" in this proposal because I noticed he's done work on military history, particularly in
Massachusetts (cf.
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts), though others may change this if they feel it necessary. I also added an enforcement provision.
Szyslak (
- Comment by others:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Violation of Consensus Guidelines
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) has continiously violated the consensus by insisting that the consensus on the John Kerry article was "invalid". His reasons were that the consensus side had not "proved anything", even though there were multiple sources that confirmed the use of the words "bandage" and "wound" to describe Kerry's injury. Despite several votes that showed that he was a vote of 1 against a vote of 8 or 9, he continually tried to mock and condemn the consensus. Evidence presented by Mr. Tibbs and me both show the wanton disregard for a valid consensus. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Violation of The 3 revert rule
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) has continually violated the revert rules of Wikipedia through all of the cases against him. In his case, he's violating the 3 revert rule *and* all of the previous arbcom decisions against him, all of which have had anti-revert provisions in them. Even if the provisions have lapsed (and some have), it's still a continuing problem that obviously hasn't been solved. As Mr. Tibb's evidence shows, Rex found a sneaky way around the 3 revert rule. Instead of out and out reverting someone, he picked a version from a List of versions that he had developed and then just reverted to that instead. The only reason why it was caught is that in this diff, Rex accidentally used the version number. You can see in Mr. Tibb's evidence that Rex often posted the exact same versions. On Nov. 4th, example, he reverted to the same version 4 times. He would change a word here or there so it wouldn't count as a revert even though it was a revert. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Probable use of sockpuppets
Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) possibly used sockpuppets to vandalize Woohookitty on the night of November 14th, 2005. Here is the evidence. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- It seems to me that "possible" isn't the best choice of words here. If Rex071404 certainly or probably used sockpuppets to vandalize the page User:Woohookitty, then the arbcom ought to rule on the issue. If Rex071404 only possibly vandalized the page User:Woohookitty, then the arbcom doesn't need to rule on the issue, because any number of other Wikipedia users other than Rex071404 possibly vandalized the page User:Woohookitty, and if it was one of them, then the arbcom ought not to rule on the issue in this arbitration case. Furthermore, that Rex071404 vandalized the page User:Woohookitty should be a finding of fact, not a proposed principle. NatusRoma 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: