Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision

message: : 1) Winter Soldier Investigation shall be protected but may be edited by administrators. A template shall be created and used showing that status and a page created listing articles in this status. It may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether it remains the focus of edit warriors.
Fred, a while back there was a proposed policy to protect pages only from anon editors. What happened to this, and if this is now a policy, would this not be more appropriate. TDC 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Semi-Protection policy specifies that it is to be used in cases of vandalism.  This is not a vandalism case, so it was probably shelved as a proposed remedy.  165.247.202.116 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed remedies

message: I'm utterly shocked that at this stage no sanctions have been proposed against any party to prevent them engaging in endless edit warring of this kind. The locus of the dispute wasn't so much an article as one or two particular editors.  Indeed when one of those editors was blocks all edit warring ceased. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Tony Sidaway.Travb 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, your outrage might not fall on deaf ears had you not been so selective with your sanctioning of users. TDC 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking isn't a punishment, it's a tool.  When I blocked you, the edit wars stopped.  I'd like to see sanctions.  Protecting the page would be saying, in effect,that because two editors can't behave in a civilized manner everybody else has to suffer.  I'm not happy with that prospect.  My guess is that you'll think that your edit warring has achieved a worthwhile object. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony, had you blocked the other offending party with the same zeal and vigor that you have focused on me the edit war would have ended as well. Your selective enforcement of sanctioning, and your refusal to even address this issue with me, makes me believe that this RfArb is all the more necessary. And before you tell me that nothing could have been done to sanction the other party, you could have easily placed the pager under partial protection. TDC 17:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I am requesting that the arbitration committee in its statements of fact, come to a determination as to the identity of the EarthLink anon. Specificaly, is the anon who is part of the RfArb the same individual who has been editing this article since at least July of 2004. Is it reasonable to assume that all contributions to this specific article whose IP address begins with the prefix “209” or “165” (as documented in part here) can be attributed to the same individual. TDC 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how we are going to do this a practical matter or what purpose it would serve. We have no way of stopping them anyway. We can ban a user, but setting up a game of whack a mole accomplishes nothing. Fred Bauder 21:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. One of the common themes from the anon, is that it is someone else who is behind the insertion of copyvio, and he is innocent. TDC 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Request, Statement of Fact

message: Semiprotection is now available on Wikipedia and is operating well on many articles--on George W. Bush it has pushed vandalism-related edits (including vandalism reverts) down from 60-70% to 20-30% of all edits to the article.  Semiprotection would stop all anon edits by the Earthlink editor, removing TDC's excuse for edit warring on this article.  If he continues to edit war on other articles this can be addressed by administrator action as in the past. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that I will be banned from editing this article for one year, your point is moot and I will not be involved in editing the article. DTC 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection

message: Why no statement on the continual copyvio's in the article? This is, after all, one of the biggest areas of dispute. DTC 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I did mention that, in opposing the protection+working version proposal. Charles Matthews 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guess I did not see that. DTC 17:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Statement of Fact

message: Does this extend to talk as well? DTC 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not currently. You can use the talk page to find a consensus version, that someone else can add. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Edit Ban

message: How does one enforce the decision on the anon, besides using a range block that will potentially effect hundreds of users? DTC 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one would against any other anon in a dynamic IP. If it eveades the block/ban, range blocks may be an option, but more likely short blocks, alerting the RC patrollers, and semi-protection. There's really not great options for dynamic IPs, as I'm sure anyone who deals with AOL vandalism will tell you. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enforcement

message: Under:
----
Parole violations
2) If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.
----
I believe there's a missing "revert" there. "...performs more than one content REVERT in any 24 hour period..."
Hope that helps. I hereby give explicit permission that this entire comment may be stricken whether there is or isn't actually a nit there. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nit in the proposed decision? 

message: To quote Rob, an Earthlink anon:
"RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Few Comments on this

message: I've asked Fred Bauder to confirm that this case is ready to close.  This is a request to other clerks to hold back from closing until he responds--which will most likely be on my user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nearly ready to close