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.
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.
For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a policy, requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.
2) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject shall be limited to verifiable information from reliable third party sources.
2.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.
3) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article; likewise, material published on a partisan forum is not acceptable as a source, see Wikipedia:Notability (web).
3.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article.
4) The editing of users who disrupt editing by edit warring, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks or incivility, or aggressive sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
5) Users who are involved in an activity which is the subject of an article may be banned from the article if their editing is disruptive.
6) Users whose behavior is the same as that of a restricted users may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.
6.1) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.
6.2) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered subject to the same restrictions regardless of whether they are actually the same person or another individual acting as a proxy for them.
7) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a policy, forbids use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) The articles in dispute include Free Republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Democratic Underground ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), related articles, and other articles which relate to political figures and issues in the United States.
2) Free Republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Democratic Underground ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are notable internet forums concerned with contemporary American politics.
3) Major participants in the dispute include BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others, many of whom are also involved in editing the forums Free Republic and Democratic Underground.
4) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edited before October 29, 2006 as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has engaged in gross misbehavior [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18].
5) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets including the account DeanHinnen (see evidence [19] [20] [21] [22] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [23].
5.1) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [24] [25] [26] [27] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [28].
6) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior.
6.1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior which matches BryanFromPalatine's.
7) Most other editors, including BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have generally edited in a responsible, if point of view, manner.
8) Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor who was involved in serious conflict with Free Republic.
8.1) Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.
9) The articles in dispute, Free Republic and Democratic Underground, have been subject to edit warring and point of view editing by the contestants. Often disputes have focused around anecdotal incidents garnered from unreliable sources, often personal research by Wikipedia editors or participants on the forums. Little information in either article is based on reliable third party sources.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban applies to DeanHinnen and all other sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.
1.1) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.
2) Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
2.1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
3) Eschoir, editing under that name, is banned from all articles which relate to American politics. This includes talk pages.
3.1) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to American politics, including talk pages.
3.2) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to Free Republic, including talk pages.
3.3) Eschoir is strenuously warned that any disruptive editing will not be tolerated.
4) Free Republic ( | 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.
5) Democratic Underground ( | 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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate length. All blocks are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
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.
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.
For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a policy, requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.
2) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject shall be limited to verifiable information from reliable third party sources.
2.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.
3) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article; likewise, material published on a partisan forum is not acceptable as a source, see Wikipedia:Notability (web).
3.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article.
4) The editing of users who disrupt editing by edit warring, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks or incivility, or aggressive sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
5) Users who are involved in an activity which is the subject of an article may be banned from the article if their editing is disruptive.
6) Users whose behavior is the same as that of a restricted users may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.
6.1) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.
6.2) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered subject to the same restrictions regardless of whether they are actually the same person or another individual acting as a proxy for them.
7) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a policy, forbids use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) The articles in dispute include Free Republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Democratic Underground ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), related articles, and other articles which relate to political figures and issues in the United States.
2) Free Republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Democratic Underground ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are notable internet forums concerned with contemporary American politics.
3) Major participants in the dispute include BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others, many of whom are also involved in editing the forums Free Republic and Democratic Underground.
4) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edited before October 29, 2006 as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has engaged in gross misbehavior [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18].
5) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets including the account DeanHinnen (see evidence [19] [20] [21] [22] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [23].
5.1) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [24] [25] [26] [27] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [28].
6) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior.
6.1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior which matches BryanFromPalatine's.
7) Most other editors, including BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have generally edited in a responsible, if point of view, manner.
8) Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor who was involved in serious conflict with Free Republic.
8.1) Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.
9) The articles in dispute, Free Republic and Democratic Underground, have been subject to edit warring and point of view editing by the contestants. Often disputes have focused around anecdotal incidents garnered from unreliable sources, often personal research by Wikipedia editors or participants on the forums. Little information in either article is based on reliable third party sources.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban applies to DeanHinnen and all other sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.
1.1) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.
2) Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
2.1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
3) Eschoir, editing under that name, is banned from all articles which relate to American politics. This includes talk pages.
3.1) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to American politics, including talk pages.
3.2) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to Free Republic, including talk pages.
3.3) Eschoir is strenuously warned that any disruptive editing will not be tolerated.
4) Free Republic ( | 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.
5) Democratic Underground ( | 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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate length. All blocks are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.