Revision as of 19:46, 10 January 2007

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, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. 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

Making threats of lawsuits

1) I request that the suggested findings here that Supreme_Cmdr has not engaged in making legal threats be reconsidered based on the Supreme_Cmdr post on this very page below. Thank you, Bill Huffman 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed case summary

The Derek Smart article which has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the arbitration committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

• apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
• the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
• concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
• questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As creator of original request, I find all 4 of these issues to be relevant to the case. ⇒ SWATJester 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. These seem to be the core issues. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've read on this page as posted thusfar is a concise and exact summary and I couldn't see the situation possibly interpreted any better. --Jeff 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Misplaced Pages that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

• comment on the article's discussion page, or
• contact a volunteer via email for assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transparency in editing

2) Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

1. violate WP:3RR or other policy,
2. evade a block, or
3. avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, this committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded in all respects. ⇒ SWATJester 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded, however it should be noted that in this case, the subject is notable for having a significant lack of positive material available anywhere about him, and is famous/notorious for having a significant amount of critical material about him, something that he has relished and cultivated into further notoriety. Given this dispensation, I would argue that undue weight should be considered in the light of the entire population of material available (i.e. if out of all the sources on a subject, 90% are critical and only 10% are positive, including significantly more critical material than positive material would not be undue weight, given it's accurate representation of the population of material on the subject). ⇒ SWATJester 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Even positive articles and reviews seems to come with the disclaimer about Smart's controversial, confrontational nature. I assert that the majority of citable sources out there are going to be negative or at least come with this type of rider. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats just blatant nonsense. It just goes to show that you editors do not know this person at all. Let me repeat your statement so that others can see the ludicrousness of it:

'the subject is notable for having a significant lack of positive material available anywhere about him, and is famous/notorious for having a significant amount of critical material about him'

Really? Well then, why don't you just go ahead and post examples of this premise instead of making blanket statements? All it takes is a single visit to the subject's website news area, as well as a Google article search to find that, apart from posts by individuals on forums and Usenet, not a single negative article about this person exists. Not one single article. Not one. Please, prove me wrong, go ahead and post one single article, from a source that is WP:RS that casts the subject in the light you portray and we'll go from there.

This is the problem. You folks are making this whole thing personal and completely forgetting that nobody gives a damn about your personal opinions. Wiki is an encyclopedia and this entry is covered under WP:BLP and as such has to adhere to strict guidelines, not conjecture, falsehoods, personal opinions, libel and the like.

You guys suceeded in driving away other notable neutral editors who got fed up with this behaviour. Since WarwahkSP and I are the only ones left fighting to keep this article neutral, we're the targets of all kinds of actions from you guys; as if we had anything to gain or lose. Fact is, we're just not going to let you guys get away with it. The Derek Smart talk page archives is rife with other neutral editors who have long since left before of YOUR behavior and pov-pushing agenda. In fact, several of them (e.g. User:Bblackmoor have posted such on their own Wiki pages.

Supreme_Cmdr 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester posted on the talk page that 99% of news about Derek Smart is negative. My reply to that is below.

I would like to see you post proof of your claim that 99% of the news about Derek Smart is negative. This is yet another blanket statement that you folks make and with no basis in reality nor which pass any form of the WP:RS muster. If what you claim were true, well then, why should a source such as Usenet which fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL be the only place where you can find such posts? Where are the WP:RS articles? Surely if 99% news about Derek Smart were negative, you wouldn't need the Usenet to find them would you? Nope, you wouldn't. Further, it is already clear that the Usenet posts were about The Great Flame War. Since when are people at their best in any flame war? So, even if there was negativity toward him and his supporters on Usenet as a result of The Great Flame War, how does that have anything to do with a WP:BLP article about a public figure? Supreme_Cmdr 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to know the article subject to write about him. In fact, that places me in a better position because I can be objective and not have Conflict of Interest. It appears that you, however have. I'd also advise you to review WP:OWN, comments like the one you just made "Fact is, we're just not going to let you guys get away with it. " are not in line with that policy, and appear especially hypocritical when you claim that we are all making this personal. Last time I've checked, I've edited at least 3,000 distinct articles on wikipedia, and I'm well over 8,000 edits last I checked. Less than 1% are on Derek Smart. SIGNIFICANTLY less than 1% are on Derek Smart. Please don't presume to lecture me about the workings of Misplaced Pages and policy, and being objective and claim that I have some personal stake in this, especially when you have a significant portion of your contributions to the Derek Smart article (possibly all of them? I haven't checked in some time), an article you've received a community ban from no less. I've been as impartial as possible with this article, I've only made 2 or 3 reverts on the article and that's it, the entire contribution I've made was mediation on the talk page, and the reverts I made were in line with consensus on the talk. I'm coming seriously close to losing my patience with this. I would like the Arbitrators to understand my position here: I'm a good editor for just over 1 year, I've got no warnings, an upstanding edit history, hell I even was interviewed recently in the news regarding Misplaced Pages. And the behavior and accusations flying around in this case are seriously enough to make me consider wanting to leave the project. It's just not worth that kind of stress. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd advise the Arbitrators to consider that the behaviors going around here may be affecting other editors the same way. There, I've said my piece. I hope I did it in a way that does not personally attack anyone and is is civil, I've tried not to, but if I did, then I'm sorry and I apologize. ⇒ SWATJester 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of primary sources

4) The appropriateness of using primary source material, such as an article subject's past posts to UseNET, is at present an evolving and unsettled area of Misplaced Pages policy. The arbitration committee, in its role as an interpreter rather than legislator of policy, offers no opinion on the suitability of such material for inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I understand this, but am not happy with it. Could the committee then make it an agenda to get a consensus on this issue as soon as possible, by whatever means necessary? ⇒ SWATJester 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am disappointed that the ruling on this matter is not more clear, but do appreciate the ambiguity left to pursue it.--Jeff 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you begin the discussion at WPT:RS or another suitable venue. While I don't believe I can speak for the committee on this, my view is that the appropriateness of primary sources varies depending both on the nature of the source and the nature of the use. We have been using the primary/secondary source distinction as a bellwether for the appropriateness of the source. Inappropriate secondary sources are less common than inappropriate primary sources. In utilizing primary sources, we would have to develop a sense of journalistic ethics that has thus far proven elusive. Such a sense of ethics would lead us to refrain from listing the speeding tickets and other traffic infractions for a public figure (which are a matter of public record in many jurisdictions), unless we're writing about Bill Janklow whose unsafe driving is well in the public eye. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my remarks on the talk page. Metamagician3000 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

5) Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, among others, must be strictly enforced on articles about living people. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons explicitely states that poorly sourced negative information should be swiftly removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I share your concern to a degree, I believe that this is better approached from a standpoint of NPOV and undue weight than from a standpoint of sourcing. We have all kinds of NPOV articles about people who are notable chiefly due to something controversial. It can be done well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is important. Whatever else is going on in this mess, I have had some peripheral involvement and formed the view that a group of editors wanted to use the article to do a hatchet job on Smart in breach of WP:BLP. It is partly as a result of my intervention that the article leads off by referring to him as a game designer and not as a game designer and usenet warrior (or some such thing; I am exaggerating slightly). I will dig out relevant diffs if anyone believes that necessary. However, if some pro-Smart editors are banned from the article - or from Misplaced Pages more generally - as seems likely, there has to be a way to ensure that WP:BLP is honoured. Misplaced Pages is not a place to pursue grudges left over from some Usenet flame war. Metamagician3000 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very right. I believe there exists enough moderate/impartial editors to keep the article clean from external influence of a "hatchet" job. I almost used the word negative, but certain sources materials about the subject do inherently include things that some may consider negative (poor game reviews, for instance). This ArbCom request was started by an impartial editor, and I am also impartial. Certain other editors have less than genuine intentions, but what few contributions they have made have been removed from the article by outside parties already. I personally pledge to keep the article as free from personal attacks and material which is not supported by sources.--Jeff 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very important, but it is a difficult problem with regard to this article, because what makes Derek Smart notable is not suitable for inclusion under WP:BLP. His involvement in the USENET flamewar is what makes him notable (as compared to all of the other independent game developers who don't have Misplaced Pages articles about them). Information about the flamewar is by definition negative and questionably-sourced, but omitting said information would not be NPOV. If a solution can't be found that allows material about the flamewar to be included, I suggest deleting the article due to WP:N. Adam613 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam has a very succinct (and correct) point. Is it within ArbCom process to address whether the article should be deleted?--Jeff 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify what I meant by "suggest deleting the article". I'm no authority on these matters, but I didn't see anything in the RfAR about deleting the article, so I doubt that is on the table as a remedy. However, removing many of the article's sources IS on the table, and removing the information about the flame war would qualify the article to be (re)nominated for deletion under WP:N, as well as making it impossible to maintain WP:NPOV. Collateral damage, if you will. Adam613 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that there is a difference between notability (for our purpose) and notoriety. If the games that Smart designed are themselves significant as contributions to the popular culture, then that makes him notable. There may be other game designers who are notable by that criterion who do not yet have articles, but that is not relevant - someone might write those articles tomorrow. If it were well-known to attendees at gaming conventions that he (insert obnoxious or unusual behaviour here, whether it be hitting on female attendees, getting drunk and shouting, wearing a rubber suit and flippers around the hotel, or whatever) that might give him notoriety within certain (perhaps quite wide) circles, but it would not make him notable for the purpose of having a Misplaced Pages article. Metamagician3000 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk · contribs), WarHawk (talk · contribs), WarHawkSP (talk · contribs), and Supreme_Cmdr (talk · contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Modified in light of comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I concur with this finding, with two exceptions: I reiterate my assertion that Mael-Num is not "affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article". Neither do I think User:Uncle uncle uncle is affiliated. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence "at least some". -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any edits in a disruptive fashion. My edits have been simple grammatical/spelling, semantic (earnings vs revenue), or date (released September vs released October vs released November), or tag removal after cleanup. These edits were nondisruptive and noncontroversial. I would like to be removed from the list of disruptive editors above. Uncle uncle uncle 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this, with the exception that as the nominator of the original RfAr, I did not name Uncle uncle uncle, and have not noticed him editing the page in the time period that I cited in the request. ⇒ SWATJester 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree in part. However, most of the sources are reliable and neutral. The only ones I feel raise concerns are the werewolves link (neutrality), and the UseNET posts (reliability). ⇒ SWATJester 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the Committee can offer a more definitive decision w/regard to the Werewolves link. That is, can articles about living persons include links to external sites that feature commentary extremely critical of the subject, or to be more precise websites solely devoted to criticism of the subject? A decision on this matter would be helpful as it would have ramifications for other articles at Misplaced Pages. For instance, the article on Uwe Boll features as an external link www.bollbashers.com. The article on Jerry Falwell features a link to ihatepatrobertson.com. --Beaker342 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

and John_Gray_(U.S._author) features a link to The Rebuttal From Uranus Bill Huffman 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You would hope that because it would further fuel your sick obsession with Derek Smart. Its not enough that you have been banned from every single forum that he posts at because you go there, but you've now found Wiki to be another source to channel your hate and stalking activities on him. Especially since you think I'm him. The examples you give are completely different to your libelous website. Your site would open Wiki to a lawsuit and if your link were allowed, they know that all it would take is one single email from Smart to the Wiki owners and the link would be gone. Only a complete fool or someone who shares your hatred and obsession for this person, would regard your site as anything other than a primarily libelous, fraudulent and POV website. It is far easier to sue Wiki, a corporate entity, than it is to sue an inconsequential individual like you. So it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom would be stupid enough to allow the link to your site in that Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very close to beng a legal threat, claiming libel. I'd highly advise you to rescind this statement. ⇒ SWATJester 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No evidence of legal threats

3) In spite of concerns raised in statements on the original request for arbitration, the committee finds no legal threats have been made by any of the parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Does the committee then interpret incorrect, or even abusive citings of BLP as not being a legal threat? e.g. if a user makes an edit, and I remove without discussion and say only, this is not acceptable per WP:BLP, and upon questioning by the party, cite the WP:BLP protection from defamatory statements, is that not a legal threat (it's a perfectly clear implication that I just said that the edit you made was defamatory, otherwise it would not fall under the BLP jurisdiction). ⇒ SWATJester 09:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the committee as a whole, it is my own view that the legal threats we proscribe are exactly that: overt statements or tacit implications that an editor will be sued in a court of law. There is nothing wrong with a reasoned discussion regarding whether or not a portion of an article is possibly libellous. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I am referring to non-reasoned discussion, especially by editors who do not understand the concept of libel or fair comment. Perhaps my example was not good enough, basically what I'm saying is that in the Derek Smart article, the accusations of defamation violations of BLP were decidedly not made in good faith, and are tantamount to legal threats. Though nobody said "I'm going to sue", what they did say is "Anything negative is libel", which carries with it the (false) implication that it would be actionable in court. At the very least this is extremely disruptive, at the most it is a legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I request that the findings here be reconsidered based on the Supreme_Cmdr post above. Thank you, Bill Huffman 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, as per the above proposed finding, it is very close to constituting a claim of libel and a threat to sue. ⇒ SWATJester 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've just added some diffs to the evidence page pertaining to this. Just let me know if more documentation is required. Ehheh 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "personal attacks" finding since it was not part of the original request. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr incivil

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) often resorts to personal attacks (a notorious Smart stalker like you) and disregards Misplaced Pages's civility policy ().

Comment by Arbitrators:

I placed a related finding on the proposed decision page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not a personal attack. It is a fact. A fact that has been echoed all over the net, including Usenet, forums, popular sites (e.g. this article) etc. I was simply astonished to find that this Bill Huffman person was now an editor on the Derek Smart Wiki page and thus pointed out his reputation. This guy has stalked Smart online and offline. This is not conjecture or libel, it is a fact. The end result was a kid (aka LouisJM) instigated by Huffman got involved with the cops, had a restraining order filed against, Smart moved homes etc. My comment about Bill Huffman is no more or less severe that that which he has levied against me. Apart from that, since he showed up, these are his contributions to Wiki. The majority of his posts are based on Derek Smart. Thats his obsession. The attempt at posting on other similar articles is just a false one in order to not be accused of violating WP:SPA; unlike Usenet and forums where no such rule exists. And if my comment was a personal attack, then he too has levied a personal attack against myself and others because accusing someone of being WP:SPA without proof etc also violates WP:CIVIL. There many instances where has accused me of being and vice versa. He has even accused myself and others of being Derek Smart himself.Supreme_Cmdr 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Supreme_Cmdr's above paragraph should be archived on Wikimedia as potentially the epitome of the violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Although it is probably technically a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to not delete it, I believe that the rich irony of where Supreme_Cmdr decided to post it makes it far too enjoyable for anyone (except perhaps Supreme_Cmdr) to even consider deleting it. BTW Mr. Smart, I really don't hate you. I do dislike claims to bogus academic credentials. I admit that I find your self-destructive behavior and creative attempts at manipulationing reality to be very amusing but I really don't hate you. Take care, Bill Huffman 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch out Bill Huffman, that's tantamount to your own WP:CIVIL violation. ⇒ SWATJester 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I would like to note though that Supreme_Cmdr's false accusations against me are hard to ignore completely. I have never stalked the man. I knew about Mr. Smart's antics here many months ago yet I didn't visit earlier and I've never attempted to edit the Derek Smart article, I've only had a Misplaced Pages account for a couple months, or so yet he makes the ridiculous claim that I hate him that I'm stalking him and trying to destroy his wonderful reputation. It is very hard to ignore vicious lies that are being said about me. I suspect that failing would be true for most people. Although I sincerely do thank you for the reminder and will try harder in the future.

Comment by others:

Article ban unenforced

5) The article ban on Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) proved ineffective. Concerns about whether there was enough consensus for it were raised, and it is not being enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this finding accomplishes anything useful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended to confirm that the community has failed to deal with this situation on its own. Of course, that may already be obvious considering the existence of an ArbCom case. -- Steel 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with comments by Steel. My earlier comments, quoted accurately by Steel, were before I had read Misplaced Pages:Community sanction, which had been tagged historical. Also, WP:ADMIN, at that time, implied that Misplaced Pages:Community sanction was policy. I've since updated WP:ADMIN and tagged the Misplaced Pages:Community sanction/Log page as historical also. If Misplaced Pages:Community sanction was a policy, then I would suggest there probably would have been sufficient grounds. However, the confusion was that it apparently was being justified in terms of WP:BAN and this, in my reading of the policy, requires a higher level of consensus. Addhoc 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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:

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.

Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator.

Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I was going to propose a similar remedy. Something like this will be necessary to keep disruption to a minimum. -- Steel 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, with a modification: Every time he releases a new game this will become a battleground again. Can we institute a clause saying "at the discretion of the ArbCom, this period may be reinstituted on the article at any time for a period of 1 month, following a request from ..." (I'm not sure whether to fill ... in with "any administrator", or "Any editor") ⇒ SWATJester 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea as an extension to this one. Having not been through ArbCom before, I don't know whether I just propose it or what. Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP have shown that they are disruptive SPA's, but I don't know that banning the accounts will have any effect at all. How about if, as an extension to the proposal above, we make it a matter of consequence that if an SPA is being disruptive to the article, they can easily be banned, without due process, from editing the article, but not the talk page of the article. That would allow Supreme Cmdr, or any new SPA's that come along, to continue to contribute in a moderated way, through the talk page, so that impartial editors can incorporate and evaluate their feedback.--Jeff 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An advantage of Jeff's suggestion is that it bypasses the gray area of what constitutes a revert. Bill Huffman 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Misplaced Pages editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would support an additional sentence along the lines of "users who have been involved in editing the Derek Smart article should be willing to accept and follow the consensus of the wider community", in the event that the wider community's decision on a couple of issues (the reliability of the warewolves site and whether it's acceptable to piece together Usenet forum posts and use them as references) goes against what some users have been edit warring with Supreme Cmdr & co over (which in my opinion is a distinct possibility). -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Steel359, it should be up to the community to decide the admissability of the site and especially the usenet posts, as the posts will form a precedent for similar events. ⇒ SWATJester 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that we could get it right without such specific language. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a cop-out. As stated in principle 3 and 5, we need to be well sourced and respectful of BLP. However, as stated in principle 4, there is no way to do so with consensus. Whoever that comes in and cleans it up will be left with unfortunate decisions that will be disagreed with. This course of action will be inviting future edit wars. Another possibility, even worse in my opinion, is that the 10% of the internet that are supporters of Mr. Smart will be overwhelmed, and BLP will be erroded. -12.22.58.56 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr banned for one year

3) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a long history of disruptive editing and personal attacks on Derek Smart, is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's a throwaway account so there is little point banning it. One year is too long. I would support a 14 day ban due to personal attacks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he has already been banned from the article. Is this concurrent or sequential, or is this a ban from the entire project? ⇒ SWATJester 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a ban from the entire site. That article ban never really got off the ground. It might be worth gathering together some information for the evidence page and propose a finding of fact about it. I'll get on it shortly. -- Steel 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, concur. ⇒ SWATJester 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has already been blocked 8 times for a total of 41 days, and continued to edit war and attack other editors, so there is little reason to suspect that a 14 day ban would convince him to cool down. I agree that banning a single account would do little to remedy the problem, since there are so many sockpuppets floating around. The remedy must deal with the SPAs, not just Supreme Cmdr. --Beaker342 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban me for what? That is exactly what they have been doing. All my bans have been as a result of 3RR traps in my attempt at removing pov pushing material. Anyone reading my block log can see that quite clearly. And if the admins had actually looked at the material instead of blocking me, I wouldn't have been blocked at all because at the end of the day, none of the materials were allowed to stand. Why? Because I was right and the whole 3RR issue just demonstrates yet another flaw in the Wiki rules of editing. Everyone knows that any group of people acting in concern, can get someone blocked and/or banned. You just have to know how to work the system. And since I stand alone (except maybe for WarhawkSP and a few remaining editors) in my quest, it is easier to point to a block log as proof that I am disruptive, when in fact I clearly am not. Is it surprising then that the same people calling for my ban and block are the same people I am in dispute with over their pov pushing activities on the Wiki page? Supreme_Cmdr 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I disagree with a 14-day ban for the same reasons that Beaker342 has stated. As his block log indicates , he has been blocked several times, sometimes within days after the previous one has expired. In addition, the most recent block lasted 14 days, the same length that is being suggested by The Uninvited. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that another 14-day ban would be an effective solution. If anything, I think that if Supreme Cmdr sees that he can get through the final step in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process with a penalty that is no more severe than what he has experienced before, it will only encourage him to continue, or even step up, the incivil behavior which has been cited already by multiple other users. Cardinal2 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WarHawkSP blocked indefinitely

4) Per #Transparency in editing, WarHawkSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with his previous account WarHawk (talk · contribs), whose general conduct and editing habits mirror those of Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs), is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe that this is necessary or useful in light of the proscription on reverts by single-purpose accounts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both useful and necessary since the account is being used to evade blocks, launch personal attacks and give the impression that Supreme Cmdr has more support than he actually does. Your current limitation on reverts proposal does nothing to end such activities on the talk page. -- Steel 10:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They already did a check and showed that WarHawkSP and I are two different editors. They just want to get rid of both of us in one fell swoop so that they can remain unopposed in their pov pushing editing of the Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The IP check did not show that, the IP check showed that it is inconclusive as to whether or not you are the same editor, but it did not prove either your "guilt or innocense"⇒ SWATJester 18:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. ⇒ SWATJester 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Supreme Cmdr blocked indefinitely

5) Per #Transparency in editing, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. Further, Supreme Cmdr has violated a community ban on editing the article and harassed other editors on the article and its talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ⇒ SWATJester 10:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of whom? Supreme Cmdr is the main account, WarHawk is the sock. -- Steel 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They're all socks of each other. Since they're all abusive, if one is indefinitely blocked, all need to be indefinitely blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An indefblock on a sock doesn't automatically mean an indefblock on the puppetmaster. Usually the main account is blocked for some finite amount of time. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that but repeated personal attacks are blockworthy regardless of whether it's a sock or a main account. Each one of the socks has done something worthy of a block, so each should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that permanently blocking the Supreme_Cmdr will do nothing but encourage more sockpuppets. I believe that the sockpuppet behavior itself is very disruptive. Supreme_Cmdr is obviously his favorite account so I suggest that we leave this one and delete (block indefinitely?) WarHawk/WarHawkSP. Bill Huffman 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure about the confident statement that he is definitely a sock puppet. My interpretation of the check user was that he was the original account and WarHawk was a meat puppet. Also, its factually incorrect to say that he violated a community ban, it was a Misplaced Pages:Community sanction of very dubious legitimacy. Addhoc 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious legitimacy? It was unopposed completely, and no less than 3 completely uninvolved admins have supported both the ban and the block (Inshannee, pgk, and Redvers). ⇒ SWATJester 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was unopposed. It was sanctioned by the same people who are tainting the Wiki and engaging in 3RR traps. And yes, Addhoc is not the only person who noted that the sanction was dubious. It is the same dubiousness that you and your ilk are trying to use to get me banned because that is the only way you are going to stand unopposed. Thats the nature of Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have brought up this concept of a "3RR trap" before. Can you explain how anyone other than yourself is responsible for you violating WP:3RR? No one forced your hand; you always had the choice to act within the limitations of policy, of which you were well aware. However, on multiple occasions, you deliberately disrespected Misplaced Pages community rules, knowing full well what you were doing. And then you have the gall to try to pass it off as if you were "trapped." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

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:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

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 enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: