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:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copyright violations should be resolved per established instructions at WP:CP or WP:C

1) Wikipedia's methods for resolving copyright violations are explained at WP:CP and WP:C. When a copyright violation is added to an existing article it should be removed as follows;

per WP:CP; Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version

-or-

per WP:C; If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source.

Either method effectively removes copyright violations from an article. -- Duk 04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2) Copyright violations cannot be resolved by editing the exising, copied text until it no longer matches the source from which it was copied, as this creates a derivative work which continues to be a copyright violation. -- Duk 04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

3) If it is difficult to determine what text is a copyright violation, due to a long period of editing since insertion of the offending text, then the article should be reverted to to a non-copyrighted version. -- Duk 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I would much rather just delete the sections when the article is really long... when people have put months into an article, just because you find one rotten egg, you shouldn't just throw away the basket... anyways, just my opinion on CPs (although there's much more pressing issues at hand). Sasquatch t| c 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RfC TDC

1) TDC was the subject of a Request for commentary in 2004, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC, and a recent Request in 2005, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2. The second RfC shows a history of aggressive POV editing, edit warring, personal attacks and copyright violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The 2004 request is ancient history; not a lot of evidence of POV editing in 2005 request. Fred Bauder 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

1. It is old news, and I fail to see the relevance to this RfA, unless this RfA is about more than just the article. TDC 21:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Edit warring and 3RR violations by TDC

2) TDC has engaged in numerous edit wars and been blocked many times for violation of Wikipedia:Three revert rule [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Blocked 15 times since January Fred Bauder 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

1. The log is quite clear, several of the blocks were adjustments. I have been blocked 11 times, and as I have made more than clear, several of these I felt were unjustified, perpetrated by admins who tired of my antics and using the rules to make an example out of me. Not all of these were for violation of 3RR, 7 have been for 3RR violations. Tony Sideways block of me for disruption was based off of my reaction to an anon stalker that had been targeting articles I had been involved in for vandalization Piss off you retarded Americrap removed TDC's bullshit - everything he writes is a lie. TDC 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

TDC removes blocks of material

3) TDC has removed blocks of information from Winter Soldier Investigation [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. He comments, "remove superfluous use of direct quotations", but removes a large block of text in addition to the quotations. Additionally he removes the quotations without making a summary of the large amount of material he removed. Fred Bauder 21:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

1. The quote from Nicosa was a large, excessively so, quote. I don’t know how I could have condensed it to satisfy the anon. It was extremely POV, and not too terribly relevant to the article at hand. The last part of the section "Changing perceptions of veterans" was nothing more than an unsourced POV rant. Hatfield's comments were condensed and incorporated into a compromise version, which the anon, reverted back to his preferred version. TDC 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Edit warring by TDC

4) TDC has engaged in edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#21_October_2005, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#22_October_2005 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#24_October_2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I am not the only one who has been involved in edit wars with the anon, on this article or others. I am the only one with the stamina and determination, to see it through to the end. I would also like to point out that the anon has been quite busy in edit wars on other articles such as the Russell Tribunal TDC 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

EarthLink Anon's continual 3RR

1) Although not always documented, the anon has violated the 3RR on many occasions. During the RfA, [3], and what must be a record 15 RV’s in a 24hour period on one article alone. The Anon has done this becasue he knows no action can be taken against him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring by EarthLink Anon

5) 165.247.208.115 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who edits from an opposing point of view from TDC has also engaged in edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation, see 23:07, October 20, 2005, 11:30, October 21, 2005, 12:53, October 21, 2005, 13:32, October 21, 2005, 17:41, October 21, 2005

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

165.247.213.84

Edit warring by EarthLink Anon

6) 165.247.213.84 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), another incarnation of anon engaged in edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation 18:11, November 16, 2005, 13:14, November 17, 2005, 15:46, November 17, 2005, 15:57, November 17, 2005, 16:14, November 17, 2005

EarthLink Anon

6) 165.247.200.100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), one of the nominal defendants, edited for two days at Winter Soldier Investigation. His editing included removal of a block of relevant information [4].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EarthLink Anon’s use of Copyvio material

1) The anon has on dozens of occasions knowingly and willfully continued to reinsert copyvio material claiming that the issue had been resolved [ [5]] after User:duk determined that the material in question did indeed violate Wikipedia’s copyright rules [6]. User:duk: "You were still copying substantial amounts of other people's creative work, changing it slightly, and claiming that it isn't a derivative copyright violation."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The anon would have people believe that he is not responsible for the dispute, or the introduction and repeated insertion of copyvio material but that it is “some other” anon user. The evidence presented in talk, clearly shows otherwise. TDC 16:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

EarthLink Anon’s deceptive editing practices

1) The Anon has on many occasions removed large sections of text and “taken them to talk” with the intent of “discussing them”, when his true intent is to not allow the information back into the article. He has also, on many occasions, labeled his RV’s as “edits” [7], he has also labeled other editors as anonymous [8], he reverts citing excuses like

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Travb's Digital Lynch Mob

1)After scouring my RfC's and looking for every user I have had a content dispute with, Travb decided to contact all of them and asked them to join the pile on. I find it completely unfair that Travb has gone on a fishing expedition to find users that I have had disputes with in the past. This RfA is about the article, not about my past transgressions, either real or perceived. So far Travb has contacted the following editors: Tony Sidaway, Stevertigo, Saravask, and the following who have had no involvement in the article, only disputes with myself: Chameleon, Ericd, Rama, Jmabel, Rei, Viajero, Dbiv, Get Back World Respect, Kevin Bass, Zippedmartin, Shorne, Calton, and Bryan Derksen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Perhaps I can offer a dispassionate comment as one of those contacted. The contact from Travb had me somewhat bemused at first because my sole contact with TDC in terms of dispute resolution has been to sign a third party opinion to one RFC. I supported that specifically because it said that TDC contributed good material and hoped that any violations would not result in a ban. I do feel that TDC lets his POV rip on occasion and I have taken note of several bans for 3RR violations but that is a corrective and not a punitive measure and it is my view that POV editors are not necessarily bad in themselves. I have myself no particular idea what the Winter Soldier investigation is, being a United Kingdom based editor, although on international terrorism related matters I am supportive of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope this explanation helps the Arbitrators. David | Talk 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Deceptive Editing and Use of Sources

1) On more than one occasion the Anon has used source, naturaly without citing them, and twisted either the conclusion of the source, ommited key contextual details, or changed the factual content of the source in an attempt to skirt copyvio. [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Travb creates a POV fork

On November 27, Travb created the point of view fork Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation [10].

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 finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Looking at the edit history this controversy seems to have calmed down a bit? Fred Bauder 19:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

1. The dispute has "calmed down" because I am going to wait to hear from the arbitration committee on a decision. TDC 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: