127:"broadly defined". I think the committee should be careful to lay down some guidelines, because some administrators may wish to adopt a very broad interpretation of "broad". Specifically, I am concerned with the fact that Winter Soldier investigation covered events in the Vietnam War. Would the restriction catch any page relating to that war? Perhaps where the content is related to allegations of war crimes being committed by U.S. forces this would be reasonable. There is plenty of scope for 'wiggle room' in arguing that other articles about the anti-Vietnam war movement either should be included in the restriction, or should not be. Some more specific scope is, I think, needed.
224:
against me? I know you have helped identify actual Sock Puppet Policy violators in the past, but that does not give you license to harass users that fall under your suspicion — especially when there is no policy violation (i.e.; Ban evasion, Vote stacking) to justify your hounding. So if you want a
261:
Since we do not know what your main account is, its impossible to say what you are in violation of. As far as the evidence I presented, its private, and not fit for a public airing, which would put you in a bit of a Catch 22, the only way that the material can be posted is If you admit that you are
238:
in support of charges of
Copyright Violations and also Edit Warring with users, all 39 carefully laid out Diffs, are three years old, TDC. All that same evidence was raised in past arbitrations years ago, and discussed, and evaluated, and sanctions were imposed, and penalties served — despite your
152:
and related articles is a lose-lose situation. That article has direct ties to War, Politics, Protest, Famous
Persons, Environment, Government and as of the most recent edits to that article, Current Events (a contemporary WSI is to be held again in March). If you lay down specific guidelines, as
137:
The short answer is really "as broad as it needs to be to stop the edit-warring". If the two start edit-warring over a topic in the gray area, administrators should feel free to warn and then block them. Ideally, both parties should try to step back from this particular subject and find something
208:
TDC, why not provide the evidence now, publicly? If it is quality evidence, it won't wither when exposed to daylight. If the
Committee is going to make rulings against me based on private evidence, the evidence will have to be made known to me eventually. Too private to post publicly? If it is
172:
that would result in more sanctions upon him for edit warring. Banning him from certain articles has no effect on, and is not a remedy for, edit warring behavior. His interaction with me is also not the cause of edit warring, as you will note I was not involved in his other edit war cases. The
243:, that I have edit warred with any of those people or broken any copyright rules. The only purpose served by your rehashing dead arbitration cases, as far as I know, is to convince the Committee to give out elevated sanctions due to alleged past behavior.
173:"particular subject" is not the cause, since TDC displays the same behavior across unrelated articles. Even as I type this, he is engaged in low-speed revert wars with several different editors. Was this article ban proposed purely as a punitive action?
209:
about me, you have my permission to post it here, in the open, regardless of how personal it may be. If it is private information about someone else, well, the
Committee shouldn't be using that to rule against me anyway. I have reviewed your
276:
It's just like the prisoners in
Guantanamo: they can't see the secret evidence against them unless they confess their guilt in advance, which means they must be guilty. Which makes perfect sense as long as you don't apply logic or reason.
318:, and related articles, are not part of the restricted articles? There may be some confusion, since it was part of the 3RR report raised by Heimstern here, and appears extensively in case evidence from Dlabtot, Xenophrenic, etc.
192:
I would appreciate it if these were addressed in the ruling. I can still provide more evidence, privately as before, if need be to bolster the case, but I don’t know what is an is not "crossing the line".
21:
153:
Blacketer suggests, you make the remedy easier to game. If you leave the remedy broadly defined, every article on
Knowledge (XXG) can be connected to WSI with fewer than a couple
17:
327:
308:
286:
271:
252:
202:
182:
142:
131:
301:
Just one thing: the remedies restrict TDC and
Xenophrenic from editing any page relating to WSI. Is this including article talk pages?
168:
by the
Committee in a past case. How well do you suppose that remedy worked? Within a month, TDC was embroiled in yet another ArbCom
165:
235:
217:
157:
of separation. Regardless, the WSI article is not the cause of edit warring, as the present wording of the remedy implies.
262:
the anon (which by now everyone is certain of) , but you cant because that would undermine your claims that you are not.
149:
124:
229:
and a violation to work with, or the only ruling they are going to make is "TDC should cease harassing suspect users."
169:
323:
248:
178:
305:
139:
128:
282:
319:
315:
244:
174:
120:
221:
302:
267:
198:
278:
154:
138:
they're able to edit without engaging in such levels of editorial conflict.
263:
225:
ruling on Sock
Puppetry, I hope you gave the Committee some really great
194:
161:
116:
220:
without ever citing an actual violation. Why have you never opened a
102:
and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
99:
123:
are to be banned from editing any page connected with
239:claims to the contrary. You've shown no evidence,
314:While you are at it, can you also clarify that
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration
8:
148:In my opinion, centering the remedy on the
7:
28:
31:Arbitrators active on this case
1:
188:SPA, Copyvio and Sockpuppetry
328:19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
309:18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
287:02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
272:02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
264:Torturous Devastating Cudgel
253:05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
203:04:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
195:Torturous Devastating Cudgel
183:22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
150:Winter Soldier Investigation
143:16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
132:10:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
125:Winter Soldier Investigation
164:was placed under identical
344:
222:suspected Sock Puppet case
98:To update this listing,
60:Matthew Brown (Morven)
297:Little clarification
115:In the remedy, both
218:claim sock puppetry
213:presented evidence:
111:How broad is broad?
100:edit this template
104:
335:
316:Depleted Uranium
303:Heimstern Läufer
227:private evidence
96:
89:Neutrality (Ben)
83:Charles Matthews
69:UninvitedCompany
22:Winter Soldier 2
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
334:
333:
332:
299:
236:public evidence
190:
113:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
341:
339:
331:
330:
298:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
256:
255:
231:
230:
214:
189:
186:
146:
145:
112:
109:
107:
94:
93:
90:
87:
84:
81:
71:
70:
67:
64:
61:
58:
55:
54:Kirill Lokshin
52:
49:
46:
43:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
340:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
304:
296:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
233:
232:
228:
223:
219:
215:
212:
207:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
187:
185:
184:
180:
176:
171:
167:
163:
160:As you know,
158:
156:
151:
144:
141:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
129:Sam Blacketer
126:
122:
118:
110:
108:
105:
103:
101:
91:
88:
85:
82:
79:
78:
77:
75:
74:Away/inactive
68:
65:
62:
59:
56:
53:
50:
47:
44:
41:
40:
39:
37:
30:
23:
19:
300:
240:
226:
210:
191:
159:
147:
114:
106:
97:
95:
73:
72:
35:
34:
320:Xenophrenic
245:Xenophrenic
175:Xenophrenic
121:Xenophrenic
63:Paul August
48:Jdforrester
45:Fred Bauder
86:Flcelloguy
166:sanctions
57:Mackensen
241:publicly
211:publicly
80:Blnguyen
51:Jpgordon
42:FloNight
20: |
279:Dlabtot
155:degrees
66:Raul654
306:(talk)
140:Kirill
92:SimonP
36:Active
234:Your
16:<
324:talk
283:talk
268:talk
249:talk
216:You
199:talk
179:talk
170:case
119:and
162:TDC
117:TDC
326:)
285:)
270:)
251:)
201:)
181:)
76::
38::
322:(
281:(
266:(
247:(
197:(
177:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.