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.

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Professional conflicts and unprofessional conduct[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to wage a public relations campaign or a business dispute. Rather than achieving any of the disputants' desired goals, such efforts are likely to become an embarrassment to the individuals who circumvent site policies while they attempt to pursue unencyclopedic agendas. Applicable policies include WP:COI, WP:VANITY, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and WP:ADVERT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ok, but a bit elaborate. Fred Bauder 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit as you see fit. I drafted that as something I could cite in future low-level dispute resolutions when I ask editors to realize how counterproductive it is to air dirty laundry at one of the world's most prominent websites. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the second sentence from the proposed decision; it's not really our job to try to keep people from making fools of themselves. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has been made to burn scarce volunteer time adjudicating between these outside commercial interests that are both abusing Wikipedia. Remedies should reflect this. Striking the second sentence is fine and I'd say it doesn't matter even to them if they make fools of themselves. This is one of those products where any type of publicity is desirable whether it's favorable or not. 67.117.130.181 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

1) In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See WP:COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject. As applied to this controversy, NPOV requires that both the history of the establishment of the group and its current composition and characteristics be included in the article in an appropriate way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban for disruption[edit]

4) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally involved in a controversy from editing an article about it. However such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive, especially if advocates of both sides of a controversy weigh in. In such cases participants in an external controversy may be banned from editing the affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who[edit]

5) In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Midnight Syndicate[edit]

1) Midnight Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a musical group, is the locus of the dispute, with extended edit warring by users who are believed to be involved in the group, both past and present, a major bone of contention being how a past associate, Joseph Vargo, was to be treated in the article.

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in the dispute[edit]

2) Users involved in the dispute include: Skinny McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Peacekpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Indigo1032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and others including anonymous ips. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lizstjames, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Midsyndicate, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#WP:COI.2C_WP:VANITY.2C_and_WP:NOT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. I wish there were a cleaner way to describe the accounts and IPs represented here. Durova^Charge! 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blooferlady[edit]

2.1) Blooferlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has identified herself as a long-time associate of Joseph Vargo [1]. Her edits are positively biased toward Vargo [2], but she has not edited since 2005 and did not edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In response to User:Newyorkbrad, the reason why this finding is necessary is because me and User:Skinny McGee have presented evidence that suggests User:Blooferlady is User:GuardianZ. Dionyseus 08:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I'm striking through that endorsement because of the phrase and did not edit war. I've been looking into that account, which appears to have originally edited as User:70.187.67.246, and while the contributions don't constitute edit warring per se it's mostly blanking vandalism, spam, vanity, and disruption. I'll provide details soon in an evidence addendum. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that a finding is needed one way or the other for an account that hasn't edited in over a year. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny McGee[edit]

2.2) Skinny McGee edits with a negative bias towards Vargo [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I won't deny that I do, in fact, have a negative bias towards Vargo due to comments he has made on his website and in the press regarding Edward Douglas and Midnight Syndicate, I have tried very hard not to let that bias creep into my editing of the article and I believe I have succeeded. I strive to properly credit Vargo, Douglas, and Goszka for their contributions to the group's success. I think a review of my contributions would support that. - Skinny McGee 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Skinny McGee, she has tried to ensure that Vargo is properly credited for his contributions, that edit diff is one example of this. As for User:Durova, I have never seen Skinny McGee make a personal attack. Dionyseus 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being? Durova^Charge! 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a sentence fragment. My whole comment (on the Midnight Syndicate talk page) was "Yes, we could do that. I suppose it would probably prove that Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being who has been defaming Midnight Syndicate every chance he gets." This was in response to what I viewed as another in a series of veiled threats by GuardianZ to add content that she felt would be embarrassing to Midnight Syndicate (such as information from her legion site). Also, I was frustrated because we were in a cycle where I had to explain the same things to GuardianZ over and over and she would keep on bringing them up again as if we hadn't discussed them already. Anyway, in my comment I was referring to a series of interviews with Joseph Vargo in which he calls Douglas every name in the book and, in general, acts in a most unbecoming fashion (I would be happy to provide links if anyone's interested). I'll admit my language was a bit strong and, looking back, I probably shouldn't have said it. If you review my editing history, though, I think you'll find that comments like that are the exception, not the norm. - Skinny McGee 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had expressed that regret at an earlier point in this process it would be easier to accept in good faith. That diff with has been part of this arbitration case from the outset. I presented it when I opened the case request with exactly the same context you select, which in my opinion gives your words essentially the same force of meaning. You could have struck through, apologized, modified, or rescinded the statement at any time. Second thoughts now - late in arbitration after months of edit warring and hundreds of kilobytes of talk page debate - are a day late and a dollar short. This proposed finding of fact isn't Joseph Vargo's behavior; it's about your own actions. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Durova's claim that it's too late now for us to assume good faith in User:Skinny McGee's behalf, like Skinny McGee says this talk page comment she made is an exception rather than the norm, and it is obvious that she was upset at the time she made that comment. The same cannot be said for User:GuardianZ. Dionyseus 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your assertion that I'm "a day late and a dollar short" to be personally insulting, and certainly not in keeping with assuming good faith. As far as not addressing this before, I've never been involved in something like this and didn't know I needed to respond to every single point I disagreed with. - Skinny McGee 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a point and I apologize. As I reexamine my contributions at this dispute I see I haven't specifically recommended Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user or some of my other usual suggestions - usually some named parties seek my advice around arbitration and this time they haven't - so it may be a rude shock and I don't mean it that way. The returning arbitrators know I'm consistent about preferring when editors take the initiative of self-examination and self-correction as early as possible. Tardy regrets are better than none at all. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova. I appreciate that. - Skinny McGee 13:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding findings of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee A clerk noted this prior to the check user coming back conclusive on 3 accounts and non-conclusive on others "...all the other accounts and IP addresses appear to be single-purpose accounts created to promote the band, and may be treated as sockpuppets per policy even if the technical evidence is inconclusive." GuardianZ 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks against Vargo were not limited to that one "dispicable" comment either. Skinny McGee referred numerous times to a disgruntled business partner. Also, Skinny was warned to be civil by you Durova User_talk:Skinny_McGee#WP:CIVIL. So Dionyseus' statement that Skinny was not warned is false. I really don't think Skinny deserves a barnstar at this point. He only now compromises because what else can he do? The sources show clearly that his previous edits were deceptive. GuardianZ 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Resilience is for editors who recover and become productive Wikipedians after a stumble. Skinny hasn't earned it yet but I'll consider it - just as I'd consider one for you too if you branch out and add good things to the project. There's a lot to do at a volunteer-operated encyclopedia. Durova^Charge 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. Skinny McGee's edits express not only bias but also personal attacks against Vargo. The tone of this editor's contributions, which frequently read like press releases for the band, are the least encyclopedic among the case's three principal disputants. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuardianZ[edit]

2.3) GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits with a negative bias towards Edward Douglas [4], See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I just want to say that I agree that Skinny McGee has been biased and abusive towards Vargo. And to point out that he did NOT credit Vargo as he stated above. He never "assured" a single credit to the guy, and further strived to discredit him. Even Dionyseus recently removed a single line reference for Vargo's CD Necronomicon that was posted about a year ago on a Lovecraft-related wiki page where lots of Lovecraft-inspired bands are listed. That was totally uncalled for and shows that Dionyseus is just as biased against Vargo. Skinny only stopped removing credits to Vargo after I repeatedly and persistently presented the references and argued each point of the debate. I never once removed a credit to the other band members, and I never called them names. I did come to Wiki with other interests evidenced in my very early history (as opposed to Skinny's NEW interests which are all band-related, except maybe the Teletubbies), and I did attempt to neutralize the promotional tone and misleading verbage used by Skinny McGee and some of those I believed to be editing on his behalf. I only used sources that were verifiable outside of the Legion website, which simply lists the information, where to find it, and allows the reader to investigate and make comparisons for himself. Some of those sources are even posted on the band's website. And I did compare the old sources with the new, and found the new sources highly questionable. Only when it became apparent to me that the claims on the Legion site were ringing true here on Wiki did I take a much more active part in trying to verify the edits. It was never my intention to continue this far, but I wasn't about to give up my belief in equality and forthrightedness. GuardianZ 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the user name Dionyseus from the removal comment above. A reference was indeed removed in Novemeber. I only found it as I was scanning the various editors in the MS history page and looking at their contribs. Since no one was working on other articles except Dionyseus, maybe I jumped to conclusions. It may have been done by an unsigned user that was somehow cross-linked to the Dionyseus talk page, but it's been too long ago, and I can't find it now. My apologies to Dionyseus for the hasty assumption. GuardianZ 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs for the claim that Dionyseus removed a Nox Arcana mention from a Lovecraft-related page. I don't see anything like that. Durova^Charge 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oroboros 1[edit]

2.4) Oroboros 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified by checkuser as a sockpuppet of GuardianZ. Oroboros 1 edited with a positive bias toward Vargo [5]. Oroboros 1 has not edited since being blocked as a sockpuppet on November 20, 2006.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekpr[edit]

2.5) Peacekpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created November 22, 2006, seem to have been created for investigation of the editors of Midnight Syndicate first edit. The results are archived at User talk:Peacekpr/archive1 with discussion at User talk:Peacekpr/archive2. Peacekpr is obviously an experienced Wikipedian, but has chosen to be anonymous with respect to any other accounts [6]. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midsyndicate[edit]

2.6) Midsyndicate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) identified himself shortly after creation of the account as Edward Douglas, together with Gavin Goszka, one of the two current members of the group. On Feburary 11, 2006, in a post to an administrator, he charged that Joseph Vargo, a principal in a competitor, Nox Arcana, had been editing Midnight Syndicate [7]. His sole edit to Midnight Syndicate cuts Vargo out completely [8]. He probably made a few edits as 152.163.100.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [9], [10] [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizstjames[edit]

2.7) Lizstjames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sole edit removes the history of the group in favor of the current group, lists her homepage in her member listing at horror.com as http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/ A Liz St. James - Entity Productions is credited on the site and mentioned in a clevescene.com story as a full time employee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo1032[edit]

2.8) Indigo1032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a few edits [12] "jealous former band member" "jealous former band member on his "hate" site" [13] [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dionyseus[edit]

2.9) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing in this one? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dionyseus[edit]

2.10) Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established editor[15] with an essentially clean record[16] who in general edits in areas not closely related to the Midnight Syndicate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Midnight Syndicate[edit]

3) The story according to Goszka and Douglas is presented in the Cleveland Scene article "Scream Kings: Midnight Syndicate is the top act in horror music. What's really scary: These guys seem so normal." by Jason Bracelin, May 25, 2005 [17]. http://www.midnightsyndicate.com

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The cover story in Haunted Attraction Magazine probably provides a more complete picture. Article by Leonard Pickel, "Midnight Syndicate: Setting the Mood for an Industry", June 2006, Pg. 24-28, 38-41. - Skinny McGee 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am suggesting this article both because it is more current and because Vargo is discussed. Vargo is not mentioned in the Scene article. I probably should have pointed that out before. - Skinny McGee 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both stories (interviews) read as the band's press releases, which are also posted all over Gamingreport.com. Some of the stuff is not ringing true when compared to older interviews when Vargo was in the band, even when he wasn't part of the interview such as Ohio Online. As stated on the Legion site, this whole pile of crap may be due to some royalties issue (money, eh). Whatever the reason, this new press seems to be more of an attempt to create a new history for the band, one that cuts out their former band mate and takes credit for his work. Both writers of those articles are thanked on the CDs and Pickel is thanked long BEFORE the articles were published. Leonard and Jeanne Pickel (husband/wife?) are thanked in 2005 and 2006. The magazine is a self-published zine. I'm thinking some favors were done for the band by their friends, the Pickels. Best case senario it wasn't researched material, just reprinted press releases and the words of Douglas who is undoubtedly at odds with Vargo. GuardianZ 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Re: GuardianZ's post: this is a fact of life in journalism and public relations: mainstream news publications do publish reviews, interviews, and features that may be little more than copyedits of a press release. Per WP:V, Wikipedia does not attempt to vet this content for accuracy if the news puplication itself satisfies this encyclopedia's standards for general reliability. Durova^Charge 01:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Joseph Vargo[edit]

4) monolithgraphics.com myspace legionofthenight.com (legionofthenight.com is to be differentiated from legionsofthenight.com a site run by the current group).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The Legion site may appear pretty harsh at first, BUT after reading the site several times, I noted that it backs up every claim with external sources, and verifiable ones at that. I used these external sources to help verify some of what was edited here on Wiki, and even some of what was here before I started editing. Some can be verified while other material, newer press articles, are disputed by the earlier material. This isn't a science project where new discoveries outweigh old theories; it's about what the band said years ago before a dispute took place vs. what the members are now saying during their dispute. I found it helpful in locating the older material, and especially the Vargo copyrights. The other sites Monolith and Nox Arcana are pretty much for shopping, reading about the music and listening. There's a few bios too, obviously like the MS site they are written by the band. The Nox Arcana site has a news section that goes back a few years. GuardianZ 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This wouldn't prevent uninvolved editors from citing whatever reliable sources these websites use; if the information really is well referenced and accurate then Wikipedia wouldn't lose by the proposal. Durova^Charge 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary sources as references[edit]

5) In some instances primary sources have been used as references, Midnight_Syndicate#References, see, for example, this radio interview

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Editing bans at Midnight Syndicate[edit]

1) GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus (talk · contribs) is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed by jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC). Conflicts of interest are obvious.[reply]

Comment by parties:

I believe this is way too harsh on me and user:Skinny McGee, we have clearly allowed for Joseph Vargo to be credited for what he should be credited for, we have tried to explain to user:GuardianZ that we should not use Joseph Vargo's website as a source, but user:GuardianZ refuses to compromise and has personally attacked user:Skinny McGee several times. user:Skinny McGee has probably contributed to the article more than anyone else, to restrict her from editing that article would be a disservice to Wikipedia. Dionyseus 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Dionyseus is biased, and if allowed would surely edit for Skinny McGee. That's my belief. I don't care if I am banned from that page (I hope to be able to focus on editing other articles in the future), but I would wish that this article be an honest and balanced account and not a rewriting of history and a promo. I hope to achieve that before any ban is passed. It's unfair to many other bands and it's just not encylopedic writing. GuardianZ 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This solution looks unproblematic regarding Skinny McGee and GuardianZ. I'm less certain about Dionyseus - the best I hope is that this editor takes a more critical look at the side of this dispute that (he?) has been supporting. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less sure about Dionyseus also, but (he?) has plenty of other interests around Wikipedia, and has been involved in too much of the edit warring at Midnight Syndicate. Perhaps a shorter term ban for Dionyseus there? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter might work. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying on three months for size. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon invited me to contribute more to the suggested remedies so I propose adding and related topics to the end of this proposal. During my research I found this edit[18] which inserts the name of Joseph Vargo's band Nox Arcana into a popular culture list.[19] The same band is also mentioned at Necronomicon.[20] After a few chin-scratching moments I decided they were probably fan entries. Special:Whatlinkshere/Midnight_Syndicate&limit=500&from=0 has some non-DR transclusions. At the risk of WP:BEANS, this slightly broader wording would give my mop a clean bucket after the case closes. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Might be too broad, though. Keep in mind that the only way we have to enforce these bans is by the threat of blocks ("edit in this article and we'll block you outright."). When I was looking into the finding of fact above about Dionyseus, I had to fudge the language a bit and refer to "areas not closely related" to Midnight Syndicate, because Dionyseus is into gaming, and Midnight Syndicate apparently has some game music credits. This rule would make those articles off limits. Would it also make predecessors, spinoffs, or knockoffs of those games off limits? Unless we see a pattern of bad behavior, I'm thinking we should keep our remedies more focused. In that way, the community doesn't have to keep an eye on the editors in question -- just the article. Easier all around. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban on band members, former members, etc. editing the article per general WP:COI principle. It should take only a low level of misconduct to trigger such a ban, and that appears to definitely exist. Remedy should specify whether the ban includes the talk page. A talk page ban should require a higher level of misconduct but maybe that exists too. 67.117.130.181 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Have the subjects with conflict of interest been disruptive on the talk pages? If they want to argue in good faith about what should or should not be in the article, that's kinda what talk pages are for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Talk:Midnight Syndicate is 56K with nearly all the discussion by named parties in this case.[21] They've filled up five archives and I suspect the RFC failed because when I requested brief summaries their presentations were so long and tangled that no outsider would slog through the matter. The entire second archive is the RFC, with all of the participation (except my own) by the involved parties including the section reserved for outside comments. See Talk:Midnight_Syndicate/Archive_2. Most of this discussion is topical and reasonably close to civil - at least by the low standards that operate in eventual arbitration cases. The main issues to balance would be the likelihood these bitter and convoluted debates would continue to drive away and drown out constructive discussion versus the legitimate interest these editors have in submitting factual comments and proposals. If they're banned from the talk page they could still e-mail a neutral party (which I fear would be me) but frankly I'd stop reading the messages if they remotely approached what's occurred here. Perhaps a compromise would be to place the talk page on probation if such a thing can be done. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the RFC, I would like to note that my summary was very brief - only two short paragraphs. [22] GuardianZ is the one who tends to get a bit verbose. I try to keep my replies as short as they can be while still adequately addressing her comments. - Skinny McGee 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count five including the outside responses section, but you have a good point overall. Most of that was GuardianZ and socks. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban for disruption[edit]

2) No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous ip, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. It is acceptable to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if you identify yourself and the role you play or played in the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "disruption" the right reason here? Is the implication that excessive WP:COI is by nature disruptive? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person with a conflict of interest could edit without disruption. Fred Bauder 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, is this remedy supposed to apply only to disruptive edits? It doesn't say that in the text. I'm in favor of a broad ban on any COI edits to the article but either way, the scope should be made clear. 67.117.130.181 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, people who have COI on this topic may contribute freely at the article talk page but may no longer submit any edits directly to the article text. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended per Durova's suggestion, and approve. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with Durova's suggestion. Dionyseus 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I like it, but seems one sided. Suggest extending to include Nox Arcana and Monolith Graphics. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of poorly sourced material[edit]

3) Controversial material based on primary sources, personal recollections or interviews of persons associated now or in the past with Midnight Syndicate, may be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. Personal recollections can be removed as unverifiable per existing policy. Interviews in established publications aren't necessarily poor sources - a critical reader understands that people who make public statements sometimes misrepresent events, which itself can be notable. Let's allow the normal Wikipedia approach of presenting all notable sides of a controversy in a neutral manner once the people who have a stake in putting spin on the issues stop disrupting the article. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want notability to be established through independent, established publications for both the interview and the controversy that it comments on, before it could be used. Otherwise it turns into a battle of the fan sites. 67.117.130.181 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an amended version of this proposal would shift focus to the question of hosting. One of the bones of contention has been that an otherwise acceptable source was cited as a secondhand reference hosted at a disputed website. Since most of the disputants have professional experience or contacts in sound engineering, it's realistic to question whether that reference may have been tainted by later alterations. Per WP:V and WP:RS, the door should probably remain open to a better documented version of that class of citation such as an official transcript from the radio station's archives. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Is there an actual allegation of a recording being doctored, or is it mainly a claim of undue weight being given to something on a site whose contents were selected by someone with an axe to grind? We don't get into authentication paranoia when someone uploads a photo of some random musician to Wikipedia unless someone actually thinks the photo is fake, so I'd rely mostly on notability principles to assess whether the cite to the interview is verifiably relevant. WP:BLP says (in a somewhat different context) "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source" and maybe that idea can be adapted to this situation. I do agree that a transcript at a neutral site would be best. 67.117.130.181 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I don't see an inherent problem with using this type of interview as a reference as long as it can be accurately sourced. Durova^Charge 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article ban[edit]

4) The article Midnight Syndicate and its talk page are banned from Wikipedia for one month. They are to be stubbed and protected for that amount of time, then restored. Editing bans related to the article will run concurrently with the article ban unless otherwise specified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm having trouble finding any parts of the article that aren't somehow self-promotion, so perhaps this article is a good choice for this remedy -- and vice versa. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be getting traction at /Proposed solution, oh well. I'll put a couple of alternative possibilities on the workshop talk page. I'll refrain from introducing them formally for voting unless there's some positive comment there. 67.117.130.181 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per [23]; see also earlier proposal in enforcement section and comments there. I'd really like it much longer, but I think this is a novel remedy so I didn't want to overdo it right away. The key point is that this article is of more value to the abusers being sanctioned than it is to Wikipedia. We have 1.5 million other articles and can get by without this one for a while. 67.117.130.181 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That post looks to me like a different sort of vanity: the kind where three fifteen-year-olds put up a MySpace page about their garage band and try to pose as rock stars. This band has seen verified success in its niche market - they definitely satisfy WP:MUSIC. I don't think we should delete the article punitively. Durova^Charge 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Durova; punitive deletion is a bit much here, given that this incident is fairly well-contained and the people involved seem to be cooperating with the process. I do think Wikipedia needs to develop the willingness to use measures like this in other situations, to create disincentive for future abuses by the same offender (e.g. articles inserted by that ad agency that was serially spamming Wikipedia should have gotten this treatment). Right now we're facing "assymetric warfare" (like email spam, the abuser loses nothing if they try and fail) and we have to start hitting back. Also, I read Brad's remark "we are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes" as applying to COI and POV-pushing edits in general, not just non-notable vanity. It would include incidents like the one where Congressional staff members inserted public relations propaganda supporting their bosses, or removed sourced criticism. "Losing the battle" means that such edits have become a source of systemic bias and have damaged the encyclopedia's integrity and neutrality including in articles on notable subjects, not merely that NN spam cleanup is consuming a larger chunk of our general maintenance efforts than before.

Note: the mailing list link no longer points to what it used to. I don't know what has happened. It was a message from Brad Patrick also excerpted at the Signpost.

Ban for personal attacks[edit]

5) User:GuardianZ is blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for repeated violations of WP:NPA despite being warned about it. [24] For examples of NPA violations by User:GuardianZ, see the following edit summaries and talkpage comments [25], [26],[27] ,[28],[29] ,[30],[31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think any one-sided penalties such as this would be useful; intemperate language seems to have been used by both sides in this dispute, though GuardianZ's was more direct and to the point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about intemperate language, I'm talking about WP:NPA violations. I have edited the proposal to make it clearer where the NPA attacks are located in the diffs, such as the edit summaries and in talk page comments. Dionyseus 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dionyseus 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I made NO personal attacks. Referring to unsigned users as vandals is not personal. Removing sourced material and continually reverting valid writing IS a form of vandalism, and that's all I was saying. GuardianZ 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I might not object if this expanded to include Skinny McGee. On the other hand, I think we're better off for now allowing both sides the chance to comment on the talk page and maybe branch out to other subjects that are less close to home. For instance, they might become productive Wikipedians at bios of the artists who influenced their own work. Durova^Charge 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be expanded to include Skinny McGee, Skinny McGee has never been warned for WP:NPA, and the only personal attack that she made was calling Vargo, a non-Wikipedian person, a despicable human being, and she only did this because she was frustrated, and she has apologized for it. Dionyseus 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I just want to mention again that I'm not Edward Douglas. Regarding the rest of your comment, though, since things have slowed down at the Midnight Syndicate article I have started to edit other articles - I even created one! I'm sure it won't surprise you to hear that it's been much more satisfying than arguing over Midnight Syndicate. - Skinny McGee 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best to be neutral and fair. Keep editing and check out Template talk:Did you know. Drop me a line if one of your new pages makes the cut and gets mentioned on Wikipedia's main page. If it does I'll hand you the resilient barnstar. Durova^Charge 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova - it would be great to have a barnstar to call my own! - Skinny McGee 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nominations are allowed. I've written a summary for newcomers at User:Durova/Did you know? Durova^Charge 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or ot Skinny McGee is Edward Douglas (or his wife), did you not already propose a ban on editing articles that were along the same interests as Midnight Syndicate? Skinny has been editing for articles on a lot of the businesses affilited with the band. Isn't that part of the proposed ban? If he had comletely stayed away from those cross-promotional articles, then I might believe he/she is not affiliated. But, as it is now, he seems to be rushing to get some edits done in those sectors before he gets banned for anything related to the MS article. I'm just saying it is suspiciaus, that's all. GuardianZ 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if my response from yesterday didn't post. The Barnstar of Resilience is specifically designed to recognize editors who've improved after having had some problems. Our overall goal at this site is to create an encyclopedia. I'll extend the offer of the same barnstar to GuardianZ too: find a non-hot-button area and edit productively. When you achieve something you're proud of let me know and I'll see if it's worth the nod. Best wishes, Durova^Charge 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by indefinite block[edit]

1) Any single purpose user account which edits Midnight Syndicate or associated articles in a disruptive manner by making aggressive biased edits may be blocked indefinitely. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by ban[edit]

2) Users who also edit other articles who edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles in a disruptive manner by making aggressive biased edits may be banned from editing Midnight Syndicate and may be blocked for an appropriate period of time should they violate the ban. All bans and blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by reversion[edit]

3) Tendentious, aggressive, biased edits by anonymous ips, single purpose editors, or banned editors may be reverted without limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with User:67.117.130.181 below that it's either unjustified or redundant regarding anon IPs. Disruptive SPA's get blocked anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The above is grammatically confusing and should be written more precisely. 67.117.130.181 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and changed a couple of punctuation marks. The principle looks fine to me. Durova^Charge! 07:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version looks less ambiguous to me. The old version had other possible interpretations. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 08:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existing policy already allows reverting banned editors without limit, I think, making that provision redundant. There's some tradition in places like AfD that anonymous IP's with enough edit history should be treated like other editors, and the provision for single purpose editors should take care of anonymous IP's without many edits. So the sanction on anonymous IP's seems either unjustified or redundant depending on the IP's edit history. I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. That leaves single purpose editors, which is fine, though maybe slightly redundant with the earlier remedy (if that one passes) that disruptive SPA's can be blocked. 67.117.130.181 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a preventive step against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Any admin or experienced editor would check an IP's edit history prior to reversion - there are quite a few of them such as yourself who contribute broadly as unregistered Wikipedians. I don't think this finding would bias anyone against that. Instead it would relieve the burden of WP:AGF regarding dubious edits from new IPs and new accounts. The key matter is edit history, not registration. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by article ban[edit]

4) If editors having conflict of interest engage in a continuing pattern of disruptive or promotional editing, then arbcom may order the article itself to be banned (stubbed and protected) for up to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This language means that a group of throwaway accounts or anonymous IPs coul get useful articles banned simply by being disruptive and promotional; it also sets up a great opportunity for the Wikipedia equivalent of a Joe job. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the intention was that the article ban would only trigger if arbcom made a definite determination of COI. Yeah I suppose there's some chance of creating a troll magnet although I don't think it's to any of the band's interest to ban the article (all publicity is good for sales) and I'm not sure anyone else cares about it enough to troll it. Anyway I've proposed a shorter ban in the remedy section instead, since the past COI is well established. I was too wimpy to put it there instead of here at first but it's really what I wanted anyway. It breaks my heart the way Wikipedia is morphing into Spam 2.0 for the entertainment industry and we have to keep looking for countermeasures. 67.117.130.181 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, inspired by [32]. 67.117.130.181 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: