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.

1) I am requesting clarification by the Arbitrators of the scope of this case, with specific regard to my evidence presentation. I need to know up front if I will be defending just my conduct, or mine and Reddi's and that of various anon-IPs and editors "yet to be revealed" by TDC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am prepared to do either, but I would obviously prefer the former. Heimstern suggests on the Evidence page that I "should be treated as an editor with a history of edit warring who has been sanctioned by the committee in the past." If I am to be saddled with the baggage of other editors, then my defense will need to be much more expansive. I will contest the false accusations, and we will revisit the ArbCom actions of the past, since it is now apparent to me that my alleged "socks" were convicted in absentia: Reddi never showed for his case, and the 165.xxx Earthlink user only showed on the day before his two month case closed, claiming he thought his part in the issue was already resolved. The 1000 word evidence limit will also need to be lifted. Your consideration is appreciated, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I second the request, it has to be made absolutely clear that Xenophrenic is the same user invovled in the first arbitration case. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) Requesting that a checkuser active on this case please look at the information listed here. I believe it may directly pertain to the effectiveness of remedies in this case. Will this mobile anon IP account make editing restrictions ineffective? Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Restrictions are against individuals, not against account names or IP addresses. Evading restrictions via anonymous IP addresses is not permitted, of course. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I noticed an edit made yesterday on the Depleted Uranium article that has prompted me to ask this. I originally went to the Checkuser page, but it advised me to make my request here if it was related to an ArbCom. Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I suggest this is the most fundamental principle for this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I strongly agree with the policies and guidelines referenced here. I also strongly disagree that this is the most operative principle in this case. See proposed principle 4.1.2, "Assume Good Faith". Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Failing to assume good faith can cause conflict, promotes incivility and is counter productive to resolving problems in the Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This fundamental policy speaks to all aspects of this case, including edit warring issues, harassment issues, wheel-warring issues between blocking Admins and false sock puppetry accusation issues. Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) TDC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Arbs may want to clarify whether this finding (and the one below) is about articles in general or confined to the 3 articles where he's been edit-warring with Xenophrenic. The remedies will make more sense if the context is clear (assuming Arbs don't want to extend this case to consider other edit-warring by TDC).-- chaser - t 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

2) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3) Xenophrenic has repeately violated Wikipedia's Policy on copyright.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should have been brought up in the first arbitration, but the behavior continues to this day. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This was brought up during TDC's first arbitration. The initiating party, Travb, cited it in his opening statement, as did TDC, Duk, Stevertigo and Sasquatch. Further, these editors and others described and discussed it at length on the evidence page. It was further discussed on the workshop page, and was even proposed as a Final Decision item. It was also discussed at length on the Proposed Decision talk page, with an ArbCom member weighing in. I have never violated Wikipedia's Policy on Copyright, and TDC fails to provide evidence to the contrary. Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) Checkuser evidence and editing behaviour shows that Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely the same editor as 165.247.xxx in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this issue needs clarification, one way or another: either a finding of fact like this one, or, should the arbitrators disagree, one with such wording as "Xenophrenic is likely not..." or "There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Xenophrenic is...". The reasons this should be clarified: (1) It should make a difference concerning what sanctions are pursued in this case, and whether or not they should be equal to TDC's, (2) It will clarify how administrators should handle any future edit warring from Xenophrenic (i.e., by showing how extensive his past edit warring is). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I also think that a definitive result on this issue is needed, even a likely therefore user Xenophernic is considered to be IP 165.247.xxx for the application of any sanctions type result Gnan garra 03:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

5) Xenophrenic is a sockpuppet of user:Reddi.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on some information that I dont think I can post here, I think that there is a strong possibility that Xenophrenic is Reddi (as does at least one other editor). I know there was a RfCu that found these two accounts unrelated, but with the information available to Arcom, I would like this to be investigated a little more. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

TDC claims to have information proving Xenophrenic = Reddi, but it is too private to post. TDC claims to have similar private infoand more private info about one of the anon IP users from the past. TDC also repeatedly refers to yet another "yet to be revealed" account tied to Xenophrenic. I propose TDC stop with the games, provide ArbCom with any and all information, and let them make a determination. They have members qualified to handle sensitive information. If they need additional information from me, I will provide it without hesitation. TDC's trial by accusation needs to come to an end. Xenophrenic 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've made a remark to this effect (well, not so strongly worded, but still the same idea) on TDC's talk page [1]. He claims he's sent the info to the committee [2]. I need hardly say that I cannot confirm this nor tell if the evidence is convincing or not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Dont worry Xeno, all the Arbcom members have been sent the material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

6) TDC misrepresented the conditions of the previous Winter Soldier ARBCOM case

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on TDC admittance of such [3] to ensure that the decisions of this case are unambiguous and understood by all parties. Also well enabling any admin directed to this discussion is able to take the appropriate actions. Gnan garra 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

7) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has generally edited in a responsible, if somewhat by the book, manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic. This finding to be made based on the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier_2/Evidence/Editing_Conduct, and in the absense of any additional forthcoming information to the contrary, as requested here. Xenophrenic 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

8) {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.

1) TDC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as one possibility for how to stop this edit warring, wording taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Naturally, a clause concerning enforcement would be necessary below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I presume this proposal is being made this severe under the assumption that I have been a party to other ArbComs in the past? Will similar applications of (not assumed) past behavior be applied in determining your proposal for TDC's sanctions? The sanctions you propose appear to be identical right now. Xenophrenic ( talk) 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, ever since my first post on this topic at ANI, I have pursued equal sanctions. This was based on the assumption that both Xenophrenic and TDC have already been sanctioned by ArbCom for edit warring once and thus that the situation is roughly equal (yes, I know TDC has some amount of edit warring with other users). If the arbitrators do not consider Xenophrenic and the anon from the original case to be the same editor, then the situation is different. Even then, I would suggest that Xenophrenic's edit warring is enough to merit a lighter sanction, such as a 1RR per day (instead of per week) restriction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Pardon my French, but "equal" sanctions are horse shit. Xenophrenic is an WP:SPA with another main account (if you believe that he is the anon, the anon admitted to this), and he has repeatedly and flagrantly violate WP:CP. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Incivility during an arbitration case is only going to worsen your situation, TDC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent)Your statement, This was based on the assumption that both Xenophrenic and TDC have already been sanctioned by ArbCom for edit warring once and thus that the situation is roughly equal (yes, I know TDC has some amount of edit warring with other users), is inaccurate. Even allowing for the make-believe that I was party to a past ArbCom, you claim TDC was sanctioned for edit warring only once? Which one time was that?

• This year long sanction for edit warring (Winter Soldier)?
• Or this year long sanction for edit warring, from an ArbCom requested just weeks after his last one closed (Depleted Uranium)?
• Do you consider the multiple Blocks and Warnings while TDC was sanctioned as additional sanctions?

How are the situations equal? TDC has been ArbCom sanctioned for edit warring at least twice; I have not. TDC has violated those sanctions; I have not. TDC doesn't seem to give a darn about your sanctions; I do. I implore you to reassess your view of these "equal situations." Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm sure TDC's repeated flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy across a multitude of articles and clear pattern of tendentious editing (example: while this ArbCom is ongoing he has been edit warring on Orlando Letelier - ( diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) will be taken into account by the Arbitrators. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, when someone tries to remove the only sourced section of the article ... yeah, there are going to be some problems. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Which would be a good point if it were an accurate reflection of what happened. However, the diffs show that the edit war started when you made this edit. There's no need for me to characterize what you were trying to do with that edit; it speaks for itself. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

3) The remedy of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), limiting editors to 1 revert per week, shall apply to any editor who edit-wars on articles that relate to Vietnam Veterans Against the War or the Winter Soldier Investigation. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note that we generally reserve remedies that draconian for nationalist disputes where we have a mulitiplicity of accounts disrupting a broad range of articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I modified this from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I think it addresses TDC's concern that Xenophrenic will reappear with a different account and edit-war with comparative impunity. I don't think that's likely, but it's possible, and this is an easy way to deal with it.-- chaser - t 11:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It should list the specific articles as opposed to saying "related articles" as this is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation Gnan garra 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

4) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The Copyvio's alone should be enough to ban Xenophrenic. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I can see no justification for banning Xenophrenic without also banning TDC, whose edit warring is at least equal to Xenophrenic's. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I can see two justifications, one he is an WP:SPA who, by his own admission, has another account he edits with, and then there is this from WP:CP

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project, see [4]

Need another justification? Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You want to ban Xenophrenic for being a SPA that edits Wikipedia (just as my user page says)? Under what policy?

Also, I am still waiting for your evidence that I repeatedly post copyrighted material. I saw your handful of three year old links that you brought up in your last ArbCom, and I am not interested. The only evidence you have offered related to me is this. The huge block of text you deleted when you mistakenly believed it was stolen from this web page. I reverted you, of course. I told you I verified that material came from third party sources like Nicosia, Young, and others. You submitted it to WP:Copyvio and they agreed everything was sourced to books. Even your web page source is a third party source, with the primary source being pages 14-20 in the 35 year old VVAW book. You don't think the Arbitrators are going to check this stuff? Do we have to wait for more "yet to be revealed" evidence, or will you retract and apologize? Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

5) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing the effected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Xenophrenic has demonstrated that he cannot cooperate with any editor who make an edit he disagrees with. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Quite the opposite, Xenophrenic has demonstrated that he can cooperate with any editor that will discuss edits, remain civil and honest, even those with whom disagreements exist. I can even reach consensus and compromise even on edits hotly contested by TDC, when communication and rational reasoning are employed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 01:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Given that he only edits those articles, this would be the same as a ban. As to its merit, there's plenty of blame to go around.-- chaser - t 10:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Dont worry, he will always have his main account to fall back on. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

6) TDC and Xenophrenic are to display at the top of their respective talk pages a banner that specifies all ARBCOM conditions, including the time period they apply. Removal of the banner to result in a 24 hour block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How many times do I have to tell you that I did not intentionaly misrepresent any prior Arbcom case. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I propose this to eliminate misrepresentation of ARBCOMs decision Gnan garra 03:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

TDC claims on the evidence page that the terms of the sanctions of a previous ArbCom case were unclear to him until September of this year, and he cites this conversation. This is just further misrepresentation. TDC was made clear on the terms of his sanctions at least as far back as February, in this discussion, and the later September discussion was just for the edification of a clerk. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Interesting, then why wasnt I complaining when being blocked after this so called revelation? Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

But you did: "I noticed that my parole violation from Arbcom was cited, but the expiration on it ended 3 months ago." Here, in June. 03:09, 22 June 2007

This was months before the "September" date when you claim it was made clear to you. But if it helps your case any, you were also blocked in September, and November, and ... Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

7) TDC cannot create sockpuppet and check user pages, against editors of sanctioned article. TDC is to email the arbcom list with reasonings, additionally TDC cannot post sockpuppet notices to Xenophrenic User/talk pages this will be done if an ARBCOM member decides that there is ground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd prefer to leave that to the discretion of the checkusers. Note that a least one checkuser thought it likely Xenophrenic was the anon. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree with Mackensen, but also urge the parties in this case to stay away from each other in order to minimize on site disruption. FloNight ( talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

As the only party to strongly urge that this case be accepted, I must reiterate my motivation: to see an end brought to TDC's harassment via Sock and CU allegations, as described in this proposal. Note that not one checkuser has confirmed that Xenophrenic is the anon, while at least three checkusers have shown TDC to be engaging in baseless harassment. Xenophrenic 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Urging parties in a resolved case to stay away from each other is sound advice. It is an unrealistic expectation, however, if divisive issues raised as core to the case remain not only unresolved, but completely unaddressed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed to prevent misrepresentation of ARBCOM decisions and to prevent fishing expeditions to harass editors who disagree with TDC on sanctioned articles. Gnan garra 04:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On what grounds are you proposing this? Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Imho, opening sockpuppet and checkuser pages is not the problem, the problem is his failure to do so when he has suspicions and subsequent assumptions of bad faith. And his failure to abide by the results when there is a checkuser. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

8) Winter Soldier Investigation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to add that this is pretty much what I suggested at ANI [5], and I also proposed at ANI that if a disinterested party would put some QT into dealing with the issues on the article, then I would voluntarily ban myself from editing it forever. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 02:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

9) Vietnam Veterans Against the War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Same as above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel ( talk) 02:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: