Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Judgment by editors in encyclopedias

In the development of an encyclopedia, decisions as to what material is appropriate for inclusion in any particular article within the encyclopedia requires judgment by the editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

It is the policy of Wikipedia that issues as to content should normally be determined by editorial consensus. Although one dictionary definition of consensus is unanimous agreement, that is not the usage of the term in Wikipedia. Consensus has never been understood in Wikipedia to mandate unanimous agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

Personal attacks by editors against other editors are not permitted in Wikipedia. Insulting or hostile edit summaries may be personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vandalism

Unwarranted allegations of vandalism are personal attacks. Deletion of material that is the subject of a content dispute as to relevance is not vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

The use of sockpuppets, while not normally prohibited, is discouraged. The use of sockpuppets to create the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I am not convinced that the multiple IPs represent sockpuppets. I suspect, rather, that they are meatpuppets: people mobilized to act on behalf of another through an external forum. Kelly Martin 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (recused on this case)

   Why is any suspicion necessary? Just see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.147.97.230#Response, where the anon explicitly invites his friends (none of whom ahve ever edited Wikipedia before) to come in and vote on his RFC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's more meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. So no suspicion is necessary; facts are in evidence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a community

Wikipedia is the product of an electronic community of editors who collaborate in the development of an encyclopedia and participate in a shared culture.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppets

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past that it is not always necessary to determine whether accounts or IP addresses with no editorial history in Wikipedia that appear to be sockpuppets are in fact sockpuppets or are persons recruited to maintain the appearance of consensus or to game the system. Such accounts or IP addresses, known as meatpuppets, are sometimes treated in the same way as actual sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gaming the system

The use of sockpuppets to "game the system" to evade Wikipedia policy, such as the 3RR rule, is not permitted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymous editing

Wikipedia has a tradition of allowing "anonymous" editing from IP addresses, but also has a tradition of encouraging editors to create user accounts. In some situations, such as determining consensus, user accounts are given more weight than IP addresses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Habitually disruptive editors

The ArbCom has the duty when necessary to identify habitually disruptive editors, such as those who engage in personal attacks and show disrespect for consensus, and to take measures to minimize their impact on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Need to re-open cases involving multiple editors

Some arbitration cases involving user conduct violations with respect to particular articles or topics may not initially identify all of the disruptive editors against whom action must be taken. In such cases, the ArbCom may have a duty to re-open the case after it is closed in order to include additional editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bans and anonymous editors

Bans, either for a period of time or indefinitely, are a remedy for habitually disruptive behavior by editors with user accounts. Bans are not an appropriate remedy for abusive behavior from IP addresses. In cases of habitually disruptive behavior by anonymous editors, the ArbCom has the duty to devise some other appropriate remedy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prohibitions against anonymous editing of certain articles

The ArbCom may impose a prohibition against anonymous editing of articles that have been repeatedly disrupted by anonymous editors. This prohibition may be imposed for a period of time or indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This action has not, to the best of my knowledge, been previously taken. Acceptance of this statement of principle would create the precedent. I researched previous ArbCom rulings and did not find any case involving a pattern of disruptive and abusive behavior by anons, and so did not find any case where a reasonable remedy had been devised. Robert McClenon 12:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Could someone please point to the precedent for this power? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked for one and I think there's one somewhere but I couldn't find a precedent for this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a better choice than this might be certain editors are required to log in to edit certain articles and they may be blocked if it is found that they are puposefully (purposefully should be included since people do many times accidentally get logged out) editing while logged out to hide their edits. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Multiple anonymous IP addresses

During content disputes concerning the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles, multiple anonymous IP addresses were used, many of which had no edit history except with respect to the articles in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

During content disputes concerning the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles, there was a pattern of personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries by anonymous editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evading 3RR

During content disputes concerning the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles, the ArbCom finds that there was a pattern of the use of multiple anonymous IP addresses to evade the 3RR rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. This is quite probably false, given that the multiple anon IPs are probably meatpuppets instead of sockpuppets. Kelly Martin 17:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (recused)

   What information is this based upon? All we know for fact is that the anon IP recruited meatpuppets who used named accounts; where's the evaluation of other anon IPs that seem to be socks? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Evading 3RR on 22 September

During a content dispute on 22 September, in particular, the ArbCom finds that there was a pattern of the use either of sockpuppets or of meatpuppets to evade the 3RR rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. The use of meatpuppets to "evade" 3RR is not prohibited by policy. Kelly Martin 19:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (recused)

Specific sockpuppets

The ArbCom finds in particular that the users Labgal and FishingGuy99 were used as sockpuppets on 22 September, based on the fact that the timing of the use of these two accounts, previously used only once, is such that it would have been unlikely that meatpuppets could have been requested to comment so quickly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymous editing of articles on the Kennedy family forbidden

Anonymous editing of articles on Ted Kennedy, Rosemary Kennedy, and any other members of the Kennedy family is prohibited indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Absolutely not, as per jpgordon and 69.117.6.210, and also because anonymous editors are not second-class citizens. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I think this is not a good idea; it punishes the entire class of anonymous editors because of the bad actions of a single editor. It's killing a fly with a hand grenade. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Indeed, I believe this specific proposal to be overblown - if it were applied, it would mean that even minor "formatting" edits (which I frequently do on various articles) would be outlawed - definitely NOT a good idea! I believe a better idea would be to simply place the Kennedy pages on patrol - and any anonymous IP that triggers an uproar would be blocked accordingly. --69.117.6.210 21:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Seems like a really bad idea, because it would not only be difficult to enforce since it would mean having to revert every single IP address edit to the article and it would also treat logged out editors unfairly just for not having an account which is against the wikipedia philosophy. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous reverts on the Kennedy family restricted

All anonymous reverts to articles on Ted Kennedy, Rosemary Kennedy, and any other members of the Kennedy family are limited to two reverts in 24 hours. For enforcement of this rule, all anonymous edits shall be considered to be made by the same user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No; this treats all anonymous editors as second-class citizens; a more narrow remedy is needed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymous edits on Kennedy family on probation

All anonymous editors of articles on members of the Kennedy family shall be treated as being on probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No; this treats all anonymous editors as second-class citizens; a more narrow remeedy is needed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymous editor 24.147.97.230 on personal attack parole and probation

IP address 24.147.97.230 shall be placed on probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymous editor 24.147.97.230 banned

Anonymous editor 24.147.97.230 is banned for three weeks for personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possible Re-Opening of Case

The ArbCom may re-open this case at any time in order to consider remedies against any additional identified editors or anonymous editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Due to the large number of anonymous users who were involved in this episode, and the difficulty of determining whether they were sockpuppets (violating 3RR) or meatpuppets (not violating 3RR), it may not be feasible to frame all of the remedies at this time. It may be necessary to re-open this case in the future to add other editors. Robert McClenon 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrative blocks

Any administrator may block any IP address for a period of time from which edits are being made anonymously to the Kennedy articles. Such a block should normally be initially for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrative blocks (alternate version)

Any administrator may block any IP address for a period of time from which edits are being made anonymously, in violation of the 2RR rule or in violation of probation, to the Kennedy articles. Such a block should normally be initially for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: