Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (8 active arbitrators).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be fairly represented in an article on the subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Appropriate use of sources

2) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary data, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case, where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Primary sources can be very useful, but original syntheses based on such sources are original research. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No original research

3) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not conduct original research. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of unreliable sources

4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Verifiability, not truth

5) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As applied to this case, the policy may mean that, in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Banning of disruptive editors

6) Editors who disrupt editing of articles by aggressive biased editing may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Socks

7) Anonymous or alternate accounts which mirror the disruptive editing behavior of a banned or blocked editor are subject to the remedies applicable to the banned or blocked editor.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Though I'm not certain about the title. Occassionally editing anonymously, which is all that seems to have occured in this case, is not usually considered sockpuppetry. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ

1) RPJ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has edited in an aggressive biased manner, see this edit and this explanation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ's liberal interpretation of NPOV

1.1) RPJ's interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is more liberal than is appropriate, taking the position that "all significant information is put in the article." This statement was made in response to a protest regarding adding questionable information [1] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ's failure to assume good faith

1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [2]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [3]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Original research advanced by RPJ

1.3) RPJ has advanced original research based on primary sources edit by RPJ citing primary source, primary source, primary source, primary source, unreliable secondary source, primary source, primary source, and primary source. Some of the primary reports of evidence are included in the Warren Commission Report, but do not lose their primary status by such inclusion. In at least one case the information advanced by RPJ is not contained in the cited source, eg, information about the chain of custody is contradicted by the source cited. In another instance a friend of Oswald's is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [4] ([5]) and [6] ([7]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ a single purpose editor

2) Most of RPJ's edits have been disruptive edits to Kennedy Assassination related articles. He has not contributed productively to Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Anonymous edits by RPJ

3) RPJ has made a number of disruptive edits using anonymous ips.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ banned from Wikipedia

1) RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RPJ is placed on probation

2) RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Socks

1) Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_RPJ_Proposed_decision_3750.html"