Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

Clarification on Parole violations

 * Refer to Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases.  I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole, then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” . The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
 * 1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
 * 2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
 * 3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
 * Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce.  (It probably should have been left off the page.)  There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
 * However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6.  The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass.  Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case.  That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war.  I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior.  Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)