Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Case Opened on 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Requests for comment

 * WP:RFC tried 1 November 2006

Statement by Durova
I present this to the committee because it appears that most of the dispute's participants are embittered former business associates who have carried a longstanding dispute onto Wikipedia. Therefore further attempts at dispute resolution are unrealistic. Midnight Syndicate is a music group that produces Gothic rock primarily for computer games and haunted house attractions. The band's Wikipedia article has been the focus of an edit war that has waged for 2 months and collected 4 archive talk pages of debate in that time. The edit war has focused on whether the article should emphasize current or past membership and accomplishments, whether certain interviews that have been published in the music press claim undue personal credit for band achievements, and potential financial conflicts of interest regarding claimed affiliate firms (label, distributor, publisher).

Both sides have accused each other of sockpuppetry and one confirmed sockpuppet has been indefinitely banned.  Some of the named parties in this dispute may be sockpuppets; I am uncertain. When I tried to mediate this dispute I recommended some WP:DR steps. The RFC was unsuccessful and the disputants declined other options. I then offered a compromise solution, provided links to several featured music band articles, and stressed that a neutral and informative article would benefit all concerned with specific suggestions about how to add the line referenced interviews and reviews, images, and music samples that the active editors were probably uniquely qualified to provide. The participants rejected the compromise proposal and made a few improvements before embroiling themselves in mutual accusations, much of which carried disturbing implications for Wikipedia's credibility. When I lifted the most recent block I did so with the caution that I was on the verge of submitting this matter for arbitration and repeated my advice to collaborate in accordance with policy. The edit war promptly resumed in bitter recriminations:
 * Unprotecting this page will quickly return us to these lenghty tirades from Mr. Vargo & his other chat names.
 * Well, now you see how Skinny and his cohorts try to make this article into a press release and promotion for the band and it's business partners.
 * 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.

Applicable policies include WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:VANITY, WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL, and WP:NPA. Given the nature of the dispute and multiple sockpuppetry, I doubt a community solution is feasible. Durova 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dionyseus
I find User:GuardianZ to be highly disruptive. He has used his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 to tagteam in the Midnight Syndicate article. User:GuardianZ continues to wrongly accuse me of blanking a request  that I clearly never blanked. I highly suspect that User:Peacekpr is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, it was created the day after User:GuardianZ was blocked for sockpuppetry and the very first edit was an investigation into me and User:Skinny_McGee. Notice that User:GuardianZ, making his third edit under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, claimed to be investigating the Midnight Syndicate article, this is quite similar to the investigation User:Peacekpr made into me and User:Skinny_McGee. If User:Peacekpr truly is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, then User:GuardianZ has violated policy by evading a block despite being warned by User:khoikhoi on November 20 not to do so. Dionyseus 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:GuardianZ has violated NPA by referring to User:205.139.10.130 as a vandal despite being previously warned by User:Friday not to make such claims. Dionyseus 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by referring to User:Indigo1032's and User:Skinny_McGee's edits as vandalism. On November 1, User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by calling User:Skinny_McGee "paranoid." Dionyseus 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Skinny McGee
I was surprised to see that Durova was initiating this request. While I have had extensive problems with GuardianZ, I thought we were getting close on the article despite how difficult she is to deal with. But, I’m probably too optimistic. GuardianZ has a history of lying and twisting facts. She claims to have clear evidence of certain claims, but then when you press her on those facts, you find she is making great leaps. Please see here and here  (look at the section titled ‘Line Citations’ for the discussion of the “Star Beacon Journal”) for examples. Admittedly, I sometimes let my temper get the best of me, but I’ve been dealing with this woman’s penchant to lie and twist the truth for several months now and it gets very frustrating. Most recently, after the protection was removed from the article, I made several edits to GuardianZ’s version of the article (see here for a comparison of GuardianZ’s version to the sum of my edits ). I moved some things around, removed one reference since she had cited a release date twice, and removed a few phrases we were still debating on the talk page. Overall, I felt the edits were very minor, but in classic GuardianZ fashion she blew it all out of proportion (please see here for her response and my reply). This whole thing started back in October when someone, using an anon IP address, posted a link to a website created by Joseph Vargo and Christine Filipak to defame Midnight Syndicate and Edward Douglas. Due to the highly biased nature of the site, I felt it had no place on Wikipedia. I removed the site, it was added back, etc. Eventually, GuardianZ decided to take advantage of the opportunity to add Vargo promotional material to the article and it all spiraled downward from there. All edits made by GuardianZ, banned sock puppet Oroboros 1, Peacekpr, and way back to Blooferlady have one goal: to promote Joseph Vargo and subtlely diminish the accomplishments of Midnight Syndicate. I thought we should use the credits as stated in the CD booklets since those were clearly agreed upon by all parties, and especially since the booklets were designed my Vargo's graphic design firm, Monolith Graphics, but apparently those aren't good enough.

Since I’ve never been involved in something like this before, I’m not exactly sure what my statement should contain. If I’ve gone in the wrong direction, please let me know. Thanks. - Skinny McGee 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding GuardianZ’s statement
Even in her statement below, GuardianZ continues to make claims that simply are not true. This is a prime example of what I’ve been dealing with for months now. Sorry to get a little long here. I just felt it was important to point this out right away. Thanks. - Skinny McGee 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I have not removed any references today, so I couldn’t possibly have removed one while GuardianZ was making her statement (see edit history of article ).
 * Second, GuardianZ pretended to disagree with her proven sock puppet, Oroboros 1, to make herself look better. Clearly deceptive.  Defender99 is my husband and he took it upon himself to add one innocuous fact to the article here  that had nothing to do with anything going on with me and GuardianZ, so to keep bringing that up is clearly her attempt to muddy the waters.
 * Third, she states “Almost all of the editing done per Skinny has been done by unsigned users”, implying I have some sort of vast web of editors working for me – not true. I don’t hide what I’m trying to accomplish.
 * Fourth, GuardianZ continues to insist that “Skinny removed a cite, claiming repetition, but that radio interview I cited was not to support a release date but in support of the album concept being created and produced by Joseph Vargo.” However, that reference was added at the end of a sentence which read "Published by Vargo's Monolith Graphics and distributed through Douglas' Entity Productions, Born of the Night was released in September 1998, just in time for the Halloween season." (see here ) The interview does not support that statement at all and the statement was cited twice, so I took that one off.
 * Fifth, how do you warp CD credits – they are what they are. And I never removed a Wiki link to the definition of producer (unless I removed the producer credit altogether since that is not how Vargo is credited on the CD booklet).
 * Finally, I am not fixated on removing credit for Vargo. I just think he should get the proper credit for his contributions and Midnight Syndicate should get their proper credit, too.

Please see here for proof that GuardianZ is misquoting two articles she cites. Thanks - Skinny McGee 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by GuardianZ

 * Skinny McGee and Dionyseus have repeatedly removed verifiable statements and cites posted in the article. Their ONLY argument for doing so is that it promotes a former member and producer, Joseph Vargo, who helped establish the band between 1998-2000. Skinny (who I believe is Edward Douglas, the current band member), would rather never mention Vargo because the current members of this band are engaged in a subtle yet misleading form of warfare against their former member—using Wikipedia and the Press to propagate an entirely different version of history, one that is disputed by older press materials. The website that Skinny speaks of simply shows how the current band members have attempted to alter the band history in order to deceive the public and diminish the credits of it's former member. The [http:www.legionofthenight.com website] offers a lot of external sources to interviews "then and now", (some of which are still hosted by the band’s own website), plus copyright forms, letters from people that the band had dealings with, and a 1998 radio interview that shows undeniable proof that this "revisionist history" is occurring. I cannot help that their current statements to the Press are completely disputed by their past statements. The problem is that in showing the actual history, it also shows how the current members have been twisting things to suit their own purposes. I have cited each and every edit using the external sources only, none of which are defamatory., and yet here Skinny removed them even as I was here making my statement!


 * I have only corrected the inaccuracies posted by Skinny and his suspected sockpuppets. I removed certain statements made by Oroboros_1 that did seem inflammatory . I requested a second check into Oroboros_1 to clear my name, and though it was performed only in part it was inconclusive (the one that included Peacekpr turned up nothing in regards to myself). However, Dionyseus began harassing my user page.


 * Skinny McGee admits to using his spouse Defender99 as a means to edit on his behalf right after he removed my content.  . Almost all of the editing done per Skinny has been done by unsigned users whose IPs point to Chardon, Ohio, which is the home city of Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus has tag-teamed with Skinny in reverting and removing all my cites and statements and has never once cited any of his own material. . Skinny has made very obvious statements that serve only to promote what I believe to be his own company, and further removes any significant cited contributions made by the former band member.


 * Skinny removed a cite, claiming repetition, but that radio interview I cited was not to support a release date but in support of the album concept being created and produced by Joseph Vargo. Skinny pretends to be ignorant, but is only using that as an excuse to remove the verifiable content so he can change the credits to suit himself. Skinny also warps the CD credits, trying to alter the definition of Executive Producer and publisher (he once removed the Wiki link to the definition of a producer.


 * My stance has always been to honestly and fairly present the history, not to over-inflate anything and to give equal attention to each band member. My very first edit listed about 7 or 8 members that were in the band before Vargo, yet unsigned editors along with Midnight Syndicate's promoter Lizstjames removed the names and album credits, until it was later pointed out that she and Midsyndicate (who claimed to be Edward Douglas) could not use Wiki as a platform for promoting the band. The only reason I have been adamant on Vargo's credits is because Skinny has been so fixated on removing them time and again. GuardianZ 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Skinny McGee is simply lying when he gives reasons for removing cites. The citation I added for the radio interview was to support a statement by Edward Douglas that Vargo suggested to Edward they create a Halloween CD and that the CD was based upon Vargo's own gothic works. The latter part of the sentence mentioned that the CD was published via Vargo's company. Both the first and second parts of the sentence were supported by 2 separate sources, the 1998 radio interview and a newpaper article in the Plain Dealer. Skinny (whi I believe is Douglas) in his attempt to alter the facts kept removing the citations in previous and more recent versions of the article so that Douglas' 2006 statements to Haunted Attraction Magazine will appear valid, however, those statements to that press source (an unreliable source given the amount of nepotism that appears on the magazine's forum) are disputed by the earlier statements that were made by unaffiliated press sources—and which were made prior to the dispute between the two band members. It is my belief that the earlier press is more reliable and therefore verifiable because it occured before the dispute.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. - SimonP 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
1), , and are placed on standard revert parole until the conclusion of this case. They are restricted to one content revert per page per day each, and may be blocked for 24 hours for each violation.


 * Passed 4 to 0 at 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Professional conflicts and unprofessional conduct
1) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to wage a public relations campaign or a business dispute. Applicable policies include WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and WP:ADVERT.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Conflict of interest
2) 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.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Neutral point of view
3) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.


 * ''Passed 6-0 on January 31, 2007

Ban for disruption
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.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Who's who
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.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Midnight Syndicate
1), 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.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Participants in the dispute
2) Users involved in the dispute include:, , , , , and others including anonymous ips. See Suspected sock puppets/Lizstjames, Suspected sock puppets/Midsyndicate, and Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Evidence.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Skinny McGee
2.1.1) Skinny McGee has engaged in edit warring and other disruptive nehavior, including sockpuppetry (Requests for checkuser/Case/Skinny McGee) and incivility.


 * ''Passed 5-0 on January 31, 2007

GuardianZ
2.2.1) has engaged in edit warring  and other disruptive behavior including incivility (evidence, 2) and sockpuppetry ([]).


 * ''Passed 5-0 on January 31, 2007

Peacekpr
2.3), 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 . See Requests for checkuser/Case/GuardianZ.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Midsyndicate
2.4) 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 . His sole edit to Midnight Syndicate cuts Vargo out completely . He probably made a few edits as ,.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Lizstjames
2.5), 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.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Dionyseus
2.6.1) has engaged in edit warring at Midnight Syndicate.


 * ''Passed 6-0 on January 31, 2007

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.

Editing bans at Midnight Syndicate
1), and are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate.  is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Ban for disruption
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.
 * Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Motion
1) The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.
 * Passed 9-0 on May 27, 2009

Enforcement by indefinite block
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 Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Enforcement by ban
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 Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate.


 * ''Passed 7-0 on January 31, 2007

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 * is a sockpuppet of GuardianZ, based on checkuser evidence and similarity of contributions. Blocked for 48 hours and warned to follow the article bans in the future . Thatcher131 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * reminded that as a close associate of the band, he may not edit articles related to Midnight Syndicate, including related bands and albums. He is welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages.  No block issued because, unlike Ebonyskye, he did not change accounts to avoid scrutiny. Thatcher131 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * was officially informed that he is under ban, to reduce any ambiguity in the warning one year ago. Further edits to articles falling under purview of this case are to result in a block. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)