Revision as of 23:03, 9 March 2006

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to Close

1) Agapetos angel submits a motion to close the evidence portion of the proceedings one week from today.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think another week should be sufficient time for all parties to respond. agapetos_angel 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Apologies. I also have no experience in RfA and did not see this as an inappropriate request given the length of time that has been offered to give evidence. I not suggesting rushing ArbCom, but rather moved to close the evidence presenting stage. I'm weary of having to constantly refute false accusations from muliple editors, and my evidence section is getting overly long as a result.agapetos_angel 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a very minor party in this RfA, so my opinion is not that important. However, I think that a week seems reasonable to me unless any other parties have objections. JoshuaZ 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Removing my comment per Guettarda. Sorry about that. I have no prior experience with RfAs. JoshuaZ 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I find this motion puzzling - I have never come across anything of the sort in an arbcomm case. I would strongly oppose any motion of this sort, inasmuch as I have barely started with my evidence, the "ink's" barely dry Joshua's evidence, there's been no discussion of the evidence, and quite frankly, it's totally unreasonable to expect the arbcomm to bump this one ahead of all the other open cases. Guettarda 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• What's the rush? I see no compelling reason to rush the arbcomm here. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring

1) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This should include sanctions against Admin roll-backs abuse related to content dispute, rather than vandalism. agapetos_angel 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruption

1) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This should include disruption on the talk pages as well when the disruption leads to a hostile environment. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Writing about yourself

1) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Dispute resolution process must be followed to determine if there is a conflict, rather than using the article's talk and other avenues of attempting to invade privacy. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

1) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

1) Misplaced Pages is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Misplaced Pages articles are not for propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppets

1) A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

1) Comments about contributor rather than content of the article in article talk is considered harmful. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Article talk should be used solely to discuss the article without disruptive accusations and misinformation about contributor. There are specific WP:DR rules which must be followed. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Proper DR channels were followed. The user conduct RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel, was filed on 16 February: It was intentionally undermined by those who filed this RFAr on 17 February: FeloniousMonk 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Privacy

1) Misplaced Pages has fostered a conclusive presumption of privacy. An editor can chose to retain their privacy with the expectation that violation attempts are prohibited under harassment. Violations of privacy used to subdue an opponent must be considered especially grievous and addressed with stronger sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Likewise, an editor's reason for privacy should also not be assumed and/or publicly analysed. agapetos_angel 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• The personal information provision of the Harassment policy was never intended to assist editors who intentionally seek to circumvent limitations placed on editors from editing topics in which they have a personal stake by misleading the community. A number of attempts were made to make the point clearly to Agapetos angel that her participation as an involved party was inappropriate without revealing her identity: It was Agapetos angel's response to those efforts that caused the events that lead to her identity becoming public. By dismissing all calls for what were at that time yet unnamed involved parties to step back, Agapetos angel made escalation a certainty. Instead of bowing to Misplaced Pages's guidelines and conventions, Agapetos angel chose to step up her POV campaign and her efforts to avoid the limits placed on involved editors. Those actions prompted the escalation of warnings and the responses of others that ultimately led to her identity being discovered and revealed independently by a number of editors: FeloniousMonk 08:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Accusations of affiliation were built on one unreliable source. All other supposed evidence of affiliation draws conclusions based on that single source being accurate. It has been proven that the source was changed during the confict time period, so all connections and conclusions are invalid. The house of cards has fallen and despite what Gobbel said, repetition does not equal fact. agapetos_angel 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The reliability of the sources I cited will be judged by the arbcomm, not the parties here. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comparisons/references to Nazi propagandists are unnecessary. JoshuaZ 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• "Repetition does not equal fact" - maybe its time to listen to your own advice, instead of lecturing others. Guettarda 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sockpuppetry & Meatpuppetry

1) Agapetos angel has used several suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets to lend support in discussions, plant misinformation, and make reverts. These include User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Regarding the 58* IPs: Errors in posting under dynamic IP means that I cannot state with certainty that I did not post under 58.162.252.236 and 58.162.245.148. It is hard to tell at this date and the subject matter is ambiguous enough that authorship cannot be determined. However, neither was used as sockpuppets to bolster any sort of opinion, so the accusation is invalid. The rest of the 58* IP postings are neither mine nor sock puppets. Proximity is not proof of puppetry. (I know for a fact that 58.162.251.204 is not mine because participation was after I stopped editing the Sarfati article, and the style of writing and topics of discussion are different.) I have freely admitted to knowing 58.162.255.242 . This user is not and was not a sock or meat puppet. This was a frustrated editor who went overboard in presenting issues, and who stopped editing that article upon my request. I cleaned up that mess with the help of the other editors and the RfC mediated by Durova. Regarding User:Dennis Fuller: DennisF and I were in conflict on the Answers in Genesis article, and his user talk page speculates on my identity. This should be sufficient proof that he is not my sock or meat puppet. Regarding 220*: These editors may be the same person or not. None are my sock or meat puppets. Based on information from User:Alex Law, TPG has a cluster of proxies used by TPG 220.245.180. 130/131/133/133/134, and he is one of thousands that use that proxy (no implication against AL intended at all). TPG is 'one of Australia’s largest Internet and Network Service Providers (ISPs)' Regarding User:Phloxophilos: I have had no contact at all with User:Phloxophilos and this user is not my sock or meat puppet. agapetos_angel

Comment by others:

2) User:FeloniousMonk posts (IP 144.160.130.16 ) from California. The following anon users should be considered as possible sock or meat puppets of FeloniousMonk: User:66.81.128.86, User:66.81.141.123, User:69.19.150.170,User:69.19.150.235 They all resolve to California, and posted in a similar manner while being used to edit Jonathan Sarfati.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• WP:POINT would be applicable if the anon users had no connection to the articles in question. However, all the listed anon editors made changes to Jonathan Sarfati from the same state as FM, and many in the same manner as FM. I've clarified this in the proposed statement. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not only is this an instance of WP:POINT, but in making this allegation Agapetos angel proves the gravamen of the allegation made elsewhere that Agapetos angel resorts to false claims against those who confront her. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• So, FM, you are denying that these anon IP editors were used by you on the Sarfati article? If so, I can only believe you, but note that you indicated proximity, and all of them came from the same area of California as your IP. agapetos_angel 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, do I really need to? Of course they are not me. The arbcomm has the means to see through such charades, and I welcome their scrutiny. FeloniousMonk 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then, as I said, I AGF that you are telling the truth. agapetos_angel 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• The above seems to be WP:POINT. The person proposing this may want to re-think using WP:POINT in the middle of arbitration case. --FloNight 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• If it is not WP:POINT, what is the point of this proposed finding? Are you seriously suggesting that FM deliberately deceived WP community with sockpuppets and meatpuppets? FloNight 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• 70.182.0.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to originate from Georgia. --FloNight 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you are correct. One IP which resolves to California, but a different IP check shows Atlanta. I've removed it from the list. However, the 66* and 69* are all from the same ISP as each other and the same area of California as FM's IP. FM opened the sock/meat puppet discussion which prompted me to check the article's history. There I found the anons from California who post in a similar manner, and discovered the meat puppet related to Jim. Therefore, I am serious. (Continued converstion should probably be moved to talk.) agapetos_angel 08:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• agapetos_angel, I request that you strike out this proposed finding. It needlessly raises the tension in this case, and is not in the best interest of the WP community. FloNight 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Flo, but I disagree. IP 144.160.130.16 is from El Monte, CA, which maps show is east of Los Angeles. The others are also from the same area, Canyon Country and Los Angeles. So not only are they from the same state, but from the same area within the state. If FM maintains that he is not these IP users and they are not his sock puppets, then we can only AGF that he is telling the truth. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

3) user:Jim62sch revealed his IP which resolves to Philadelphia (xxxx.phlapa.east.xxxx.net). user:Rainbowpainter made one article edit since joining, adding to the conflict on Jonathan Sarfati, and the user page states 'Philadelphia Flyers fan'. User:Duncharris posted a suspected sock puppet box on Jim's user page which Jim removed . Therefore, it must be concluded that Rainbowpainter is Jim62sch's meat puppet for the purposes of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Rainbowpainter is my wife and can make whatever edits she wishes to make, as neither she nor I are subjects of the article in question. Dunc's tag was something Dunc will explain. Jim62sch 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)ADDENDUM: And, as he noted below: IT WAS A JOKE! I shall refrain from any further comments to AA, as enough energy and time has been expended on her baseless accusations. Jim62sch 10:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to the guidelines FM stated, Rainbowpainter would be considered your meat puppet on the article. agapetos_angel 08:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• So, um yeah who is your spouse? — Dunc|☺ 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't state I was married. Who is your spouse? agapetos_angel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Again, this serves as proof of the allegation that Agapetos angel resorts to false claims against those who confront her, as well as being an instance of WP:POINT. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Jim confirmed it was his wife, so the claim is not false. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Jim's comment was a clarification of fact, not a mea culpa, and an example of what responsible editors do when queried on such matters to avoid creating disruption, something I've alleged you've failed to do. There's no pattern of meatpuppetry by Rainbowpainter. An individual editor making a single edit under her unique username does not a meatpuppet make: Rainbowpainter has made no effort to hide her identity or relationship to Jimsch62, in fact just the contrary I'd say, seeing her recent response to you making this allegation. No doubt objective observers will note the irony. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Um, yeah, sorry, it was supposed to be funny but didn't quite work out that way. Sorry Jim. Anyway, this is a needless distraction from the behaviour of the subject. One revert by a friend isn't being disruptive. Continuing a campaign of disruption over several months is. — Dunc|☺ 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• No biggie, Dunc; and agreed wholeheartedly. Jim62sch 10:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• agapetos_angel, I request that you strike out this proposed finding. It needlessly raises the tension in this case, and is not in the best interest of the WP community. FloNight 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but again I disagree. Jim has confirmed that Rainbowpainter is his wife. That account was used to edit one article, in the midst of the conflict, to perpetuate that conflict. That is the definition of meat puppet. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, is it now? My wife does what she chooses to do. She read the article of her own free will and posted of her own free will. Your rather sickeningly ignorant, illogical and insulting implication is that she is some mindless twit who does whatever I tell her to do. I assure you, that that is not the case. She is a very intelligent woman with a mind of her own. That she too feels that you covered up your identity to influence the Sarfati article only reinforced my belief that it was so. Now then, does her reinforcement make me her meat puppet? Jim62sch 23:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discourtesy

1) Agapetos angel has frequently misrepresented herself and others, engaged in personal attacks against other editors, and been generally uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Accusations of misrepresentation, personal attacks, and incivility have to be viewed in context and with regard to like participation by other editors. If my use of trolling and drivel is subject to a penalty, then sanctions must be fairly applied to all editors that have used the same or similar terms, including the other editors named in this arbitration. Context of the situation must also be taken into account (e.g., in response to spamming of worse incivility such as false accusations of forgery, dishonesty, and lying, or in response to a nonsense post on my own user page). It is my understanding that use of profanity in edit summary is not an offence that is sanctioned. I submit that my usage of these words was far more civil than profanity and appropriate to the circumstances. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Writing about yourself

1) Agapetos angel has contributed to articles in which she is personally involved and has failed to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Evidence submitted privately to ArbCom negates this claim. A tenuous affiliation was drawn by a single online source and used in an attempt to silence an opponent. Further cache evidence shows that the changes were manufactured during the timing of the conflict. Also, a quote was misattributed (now retracted) and posted as evidence of affiliation. Misplaced Pages was repeatedly disrupted rather than these editors following proper dispute procedure. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• The evidence submitted privately to the arbcomm, which Agapetos angel has reviewed, contained 9 independent sources, over 20 supporting links, and 3 emails from 3 parties all indicating that Agapetos angel was indeed a very specific involved party. To state that only 1 source was offered is to again misrepresent verifiable facts. FeloniousMonk 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• No affiliation has been established beyond FM's commentary that one must exist because of his malformed conclusions. The only relevant source is the school source where information was changed in the midst of this conflict (Google cache shows it was changed between 22 Dec 2005 and Feb 2006) through a webform with no apparent checking mechanism. None of the other emails or sources establish any affiliation with the subjects of the articles. I have submitted rebuttal to ArbCom. I also want to add that I am particularly disgusted by the actions of KillerChihuahua who, after admonishing me for accidently using her real name and warning I could be banned for doing so, passed on private information garnered from my apology email. Those actions fueled this lynching, while the information gives absolutely no indication of affiliation to any of the article's subjects. agapetos_angel 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Agapetos angel acted with admirable fairness on Answers in Genesis. Durova 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• There is evidence beyond the "single online source" which I will provide via email to the Arbcom members if desired. KillerChihuahua 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Jonathan Sarfati

1) Agapetos angel disrupted the Jonathan Sarfati article through edit warring and repeated 3RR violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• The 3RR sanctions were applied erroneously, as close examination of the evidence will reveal. False reporting led to the sanctions being imposed. In the first instance, there was no report filed because Duncharris blocked me while involved in the edits. In the second, there were several edits listed and most were unconnected (separate edits). In the third, there was misinformation posted and retracted, and the edit that was fourth on the list was unrelated to the other three (which means that 3RR was not violated). agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2) FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and Jim62sch disrupted Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis, and Ken Ham by posting accusations and misinformation in article and talk rather than following proper dispute procedure. See WP:DR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and Guettarda disrupted Jonathan Sarfati with abusive rollbacks and reverts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

1) Agapetos angel (and her sockpuppets/meatpuppets) has used Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promotion of a particular view of Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This has been negated by evidence to the contrary. The dispute page at Sarfati instituted nearly all my original points as valid and supported as correct by the moderartor. Participation on AIG resulted in a Barnstar award. I have not used sock or meat puppets. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I strongly object to that characterization regarding Answers in Genesis and mildly object to it regarding Jonathan Sarfati. See my other coments. Durova 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

2) FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, Guettarda, and Jim62sch have disruptively used Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promotion of a particular view on Jonathan Sarfati.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This is illustrated by the dispute page, where positive results were accomplished with the mediator in just over one week when these editors were not disrupting the process as they had on the article's talk page. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• "Positive results were achieved" - sure, if one side of a dispute is not involved, its amazing how fast you can achieve consensus. Of course, I see no point in entering mediation with someone who deletes all my attempts at dispute resolution as "trolling" and then files an RFAr when I took the next step towards an RFC. I see no point in talking to Apagetos angel under those circumstances. The Sarfati article is pretty hagiographic right now, but I see no point in trying to get it towards an acceptable standard while other issues are still outstanding. You can't talk to someone who posts lies about you and deletes your attempts at resolution as "trolling". Guettarda 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Guettarda participated three times on the dispute page, and the other editors also participated. The difference was the more subdued manner in which they participated. I did not file the RfAr; I responded to it by request. I agree with hagiographic and have stated same, but also have not edited it for the same reasons. I've answered the other accusation on evidence regarding how Guettarda spammed my user talk repeatedly. Also, Guettarda removed my one attempt at a resolution on his user talk page with a similar deletion and 'trolling' comment, so that complaint is disingenuous. agapetos_angel 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• More of the selective misrepresentation for which this user is famous. I have no objection to participating in attempts with good-faith editors to resolve disputes. I posted three times, in discussion with SlimVirgin and JoshuaZ, before Agapetos angel deigned to participate. It was, in fact, her refusal to participate that prompted the attempt at the RFC, which was derailed by this RFAr. Guettarda 19:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Selective misrepresentation? Like saying I filed the RfAr? (I responded to it by request) Like saying I deleted all your attempts at dispute resolution as trolling? (I deleted the last few of many and archived the rest. Your posts spammed my user talk repeatedly after I offered two apologies and multiple attempts at revision. I attempted twice to ascertain what you meant by the rollback that went beyond my edit if you had no disagreement with the content I added, and attempted to respond to you while being subjected to increasingly hostile accusations of forgery and dishonesty.) agapetos_angel 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

1) Agapetos angel and her sockpuppets/meatpuppets have engaged in many sustained agressive edit wars in an attempt to rewrite Jonathan Sarfati to fit their point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Again, the evidence disproves the accusation (This is just a remix of the above accusations). agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2) FeloniousMonk restricted inclusion of material into Jonathan Sarfati by insisting on a misapplication of WP:V.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• WP:V states that verifiability 'does not mean that editors are expected to verify' material, and in fact strongly discourages 'conducting this kind of research'. However, FM insisted on validation of articles and validation of journal peer-review before he would allow inclusion of the material which was obtained from a reputable source. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3) FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, Duncharris, and Jim62sch used claims of WP:CON, a guideline, to promote a POV that violated WP:V, WP:NPV, and WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Removal of the long standing subsection 'Scientist?' was appropriate per official policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV, and guideline WP:LIVING. However, these editors insisted that the material was WP:CON, disregarding that WP:CON states that it does not override the official policies. This fact was confirmed by moderator SlimVirgin on the dispute page. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruption of the dispute resolution process

During the course of this RFAr Agapetos angel made bad faith allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, violating WP:POINT in the process: While making these allegations, Agapetos angel carried the disruption outside of the RFAr to the User Talk space: Agapetos angel rejected calls from a 3rd party to strike these allegations:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Accusation of bad faith is a violation of AGF. I made honest proposals based on evidence (and FeloniousMonk's guidelines in his accusations). FM has denied the connection, just as I have denied the connections he tried to draw. Jim, on the other hand, has confirmed the connection, and Rainbowpainter's contribution is by definition meat puppet usage. I also informed the users that FM has accused of being my sock/meat puppets. This is not to carry disruption and is no different than any of the editors here informing someone that they are mentioned so they can provide evidence. agapetos_angel 19:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Agapetos angel banned from certain articles

1) Agapetos angel is banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis and any articles related to Creation Ministries International.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose because no affiliation has been established. The only relevant source is the school source where information was changed in the midst of this conflict (Google cache shows it was changed between 22 Dec 2005 and Feb 2006) through a webform with no apparent checking mechanism. agapetos_angel 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I object to a proposed ban on Answers in Genesis. This and other users' reaction to RfC was so positive and productive that I awarded a collective barnstar. The conflict at Jonathan Sarfati in no way affected that reward, since I learned about it afterward. Durova 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Both sides agree not to edit others' opinions

1) Both sides agree not to edit others' opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arb-com clarifies rules

1) The issue of the relevance of real-world identity needs to be addressed because we can't have a radically open to anon editing system combined with rules about what you can and can't do based on your real world identity. The two are logically incoherant. Jimbo has said in print that it is "a fool's game" to try to figure out real world identities and deal with contributors on that basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Perhaps an arb-com ruling that only self announced real world identities count in nonvandalism cases, and we don't out real world identies just like we don't make legal threats would help. Rules that are inconsistent with themselves need to be fixed. I believe the problem here is more with the rules than the people. WAS 4.250 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Users 220.245.180.***, 203.213.77.*** and 58.162.***.*** banned from certain articles

1) Editors contributing under the listed IP ranges are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis and any articles related to Creation Ministries International.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: