Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

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

There are 2 arbitrators recused and one inactive, so 5 is a majority.

Contents

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Following official policy

1) Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point-of-view

2) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of full expression of all significant diverse points of view regarding all aspects of any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Now reads:

Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 18:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. "All aspects of any subject" leaves articles open to the inclusion of mindless trivia and extreme minority (even minority of one) ideas on issues. See my proposed alternate wording (based on wording on the NPOV policy page). ---mav 03:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hope the above changes meet your objections. Fred Bauder 14:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain

2.1) Editors should take care to present each of the significant views on a subject fairly. They should characterize disputes, making sure to not assert any one position as correct. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Reasonable persons who represent each of the major viewpoints should be able to look at the resulting text and agree that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). This is the essence of the NPOV policy.

Aye:
  1. mav 03:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) Wordy and potentially misleading.
Abstain

[edit] Removal of Arbitration evidence

3) Removing evidence from an Arbitration page is unacceptable.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Unexplained deletions on controversial articles

4) Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

5) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 16:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 02:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Changing of votes

6) Changing the votes of other people in a Wikipedia poll such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is a serious offense.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 23:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 06:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Revert warring

1) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have engaged in multiple revert wars on multiple pages on widely varying topics, including libertarianism, see page history, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Michael Badnarik, United States Libertarian Party, General Motors, McJob, Ron Paul, Roppongi Hills, Temple University, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Dred Scott v. Sandford, libertarian socialism, libertarian theory, Libertarian Party and Libertarian League. Often he brazenly ignored the three-revert rule, reverting dozens of times in a very short period. Many times he did not use talk pages or even edit summaries, or used them as forums for abusing other users. He did so even after being advised of policy and warned about his revisions. He continued to revert even after being reverted and asked to stop by dozens of well-respected users. He also continued to revert even after being temporarily blocked and having a RfC brought aganist him. (See the evidence page).

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 03:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
For heavens sake just look at the page history of any of the cited articles! --mav
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of templates

2) ChuckF removed the {{NPOV}} template [1] from an article that he was in a revert war over (the revert war dealt with POV issues). (See the evidence page).

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I changed the wording to be more specific)
  6. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The cited example seems unobjectionable. Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
He was in the revert war over POV issues and he removed notice of the article's POV. --mav
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of content

3) ChuckF has repeatedly removed content and external links from articles in order to impose a point-of-view on them. In many cases he has given insufficient reasons for the removal. (See the evidence page). For example [2] removing large blocks of information with the edit summary "Minor" "Fixed spelling".

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt David Gerard 01:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 03:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (changed my mind since it involves our NPOV policy - which does need to be followed)
Nay:

:# No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:
  1. Deals with a content issue and thus outside of our jurisdiction. --mav 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Agree with mav, although I think it's borderline.)
    Actually, you're right David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) The example's pretty clear.

[edit] Personal attacks

4) ChuckF has made many personal attacks. (See the evidence page).

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I've seen plenty of worse cases, but I see quite a few there.
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'd like to see some specific examples. --mav 00:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

5) ChuckF has used sockpuppets in violation of the sockpuppet policy, having created them to deliberately violate or evade Wikipedia policy. Examples include 203.112.19.195–210.142.29.125, 200.55.11.49, and 208.62.52.1). (See the evidence page).

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Could be worded better, but we get the point.
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I've added another clause to the sentence. How's that?
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (If using open proxies counts, then what Chuck F did does count as sockpuppetry.)
  6. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 03:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:

:# No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

[edit] Removal of evidence

6) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have removed evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence. (See the evidence page).[3]

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. He did it but seems to misunderstand that the other party was entitled to present evidence against him too Fred Bauder 19:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I added the diff. --mav
  1. That deletion may have been accidental. See [4] --mav 01:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (In light of mav's comment that the deletion may have been accidental.)
Abstain:

[edit] Ignoring previous Arbitration Committee ruling

7) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have ignored previous Arbitration Committee temporary injunctions. Specifically, ChuckF has made edits to the main namespace several times (from 00:46 (UTC) Nov 16, 2004 to 03:05 (UTC) Nov 25, 2004) in violation of an Arbitration Committee order. (See the evidence page).[5] (violation of a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy)

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 00:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 19:49, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Ruling ignored not specified and no specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I added a link. --mav
Abstain:

[edit] NPOV

8) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly edited articles in a point-of-view manner. (See the evidence page). Examples include [6] (Removal of material with the comment "More Article Bias removing"; [7] (Removing all criticism and placing it in separate article); [8] (Removing more prominant link to critical article); [9] ("POV nonsense").

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Could be better worded, but we get the idea.
  3. David Gerard David Gerard 01:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 03:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 07:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (NPOV is a policy that needs to be enforced - but we do need to be careful not to rule on the validity content)
Nay:

:# No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 15:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:
Content issue and thus outside of our jurisdiction. --mav 01:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Although I think at some point a determination that someone is a POV warrior will be necessary, here there's enough other stuff that it's not needed.)
    As above - this one is a bit weak - David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I don't like the potential precedent these abstentions/rejections set. The breaches of the NPOV policy here are clear and obvious - can we enforce the NPOV policy in regards to someone who persistently violates it, or can't we? I've objected to findings in the past that have attempted to refer to article content as POV/NPOV, but I think the pattern of behaviour here is pretty clear. Ambi 06:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

9) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly vandalized articles and created nonsense articles, often disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Examples include 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit', Nut (hardware), and NATO at the 2004 Summer Olympics, in addition to vandalizing a userpage. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F/Evidence#Dec 5).

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 23:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (using open proxies to evade blocks is vandalism and in direct oppositon to policy) mav 01:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 02:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 03:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:

:# No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 23:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Added. --mav
Abstain:

[edit] Changing of votes on VfD

10) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly engaged in the malicious changing of votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (VfD). Examples include Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FahrenHype 9/11, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Market libertarianism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NATO at the 2004 Summer Olympics.[10], [11]

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 23:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 02:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 06:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 03:18, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:

:# No specific evidence showing the behavior cited Fred Bauder 23:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) Yes, but there is no valid finding of fact that that is Chuck F's sockkpuppet.

Two examples added. --mav
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

[edit] One-week ban for personal attacks

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are banned for one week for personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have little tolerance for personal attacks, particularly combined with other policy violations.
  3. Ambi 03:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. I don't see a huge pattern of this. --mav 01:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Two-month ban for reverts

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are banned for two months for repeated and malicious revert warring and violation of the three-revert rule.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Feels a touch long to me, but not unjustly so.
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Doesn't seem near long enough Fred Bauder 20:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    See the rever warring section. --mav
  2. We just imposed a 3 month probation period in Gzornenplatz et al for people doing the same type of thing. A probation seems more in order here as well. --mav 02:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Changed my vote after reading Mav's alternative proposal. Ambi 02:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Voting for section-area ban.)
Abstain:

[edit] One-month ban for disregard for the previous Arbitration ruling

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are banned for one month for blatant disregard for the Arbitration community's previous rulings.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Seems a bit long Fred Bauder 20:07, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    See 2.7 Ignoring previous Arbitration Committee ruling --mav
Abstain:

[edit] One-week ban for removal of evidence

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are banned for one week for removing evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd like longer.
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) He seems to not have understood that the other party could present evidence against him. Fred Bauder 20:08, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. That one single edit looks like it was an accident. --mav 02:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Looks like an accident.)
  4. Ambi 01:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban on editing some articles

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are hereby banned from editing any article related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including one week. Administrators are authorized to determine what relates to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology at their discretion.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Shouldn't part of this be under remedies, though?
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Do you mean enforcement?
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Probation and parole is a better option at this point. --mav 02:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Three-month parole

For repeated violations of the three revert rule, Chuck F is placed on a 3 month general parole. If during this period he violates the other remedies passed in this case, then he can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of his parole period banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This parole period starts after Chuck F successfully serves whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom.

Aye:
  1. mav 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (this is the same remedy we gave in Gzornenplatz et al)
    Ambi 02:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:04, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Actually, I don't think this is a wise move. As far as I can see, the problems with Chuck have been largely limited to liberalism-related articles. I'd sooner see him banned from editing that subset of articles than this, which is very likely (based on his behaviour during the last case) to amount to a three-month ban from Wikipedia in general. Ambi 01:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] One-year revert probation

Chuck F is hereby limited to 1 revert per article per day and must discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page. This probation will last for 1 year and will start as soon as Chuck F is done serving whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom. Admins can treat anything more than 1 revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. If Chuck F demonstrates good behavior in a minimum of 6 weeks, then he can petition the ArbCom to stay this ruling.


Aye:
  1. mav 02:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:04, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 20:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] One-month ban for vandalism/use of open proxies

Chuck F is hereby banned for 1 month for vandalism and use of open proxies to violate policy and to evade blocks.

Aye:
  1. mav 02:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:04, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 20:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Removal of content

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are hereby prohibited from removal of information or substantive content (including external links and references/sources) from any article. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a removal of information or content at their discretion.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. See the probation and parole sections above. --mav 02:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Above remedies are better.)
Abstain:

[edit] Required edit summaries

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) must give legitimate edit summary for every edit he makes, excepting those to his userspace. Should he not do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up to and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a legitimate edit summary at their discretion.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 16:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC) see this edit [12].
Nay:

:# No supporting finding of fact Fred Bauder 15:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Delirium 12:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) (Edit summaries don't seem to be an issue in the findings of fact.)
Abstain:
  1. I'd like to see a finding for this first. --mav 02:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

  • I declare my intention to remain recused in this case. -- Grunt   ҈  02:15, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • I also will remain recused in this case - due to past mediation work -- sannse (talk) 20:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That makes the required majority five Arbitrators. Neutralitytalk 03:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. mav 00:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (granted there are a couple items that may pass, but I think enough time for their passage has already been given and the passed items will be just.)
  1. Oppose closing. There's still a few things that could well pass, and are only being prevented because of either technicalities (which, if people are voting against remedies because of them, means we need to fix up, rather than ignore), or because Fred chose to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point in giving Neutrality this crash course in remedy writing (and Fred still doesn't appear to have reviewed his prior votes). Ambi 01:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK - fair enough. --mav 02:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Please consider and refine the proposed principle regarding NPOV before closing. I'd still like to see some examples of personal attacks, too. Also I think we are delivering a slap on the wrist to a very serious offender, a systemic point of view warrior. I would welcome some stronger sanctions. Fred Bauder 16:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
New motion
  1. All items that could likely pass have passed. It is time to close. --mav 21:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 23:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 01:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 10:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still oppose closing. We have a new proposal that all of two people have voted on. Heck, trying to get you people to close the Darwin case was like pulling teeth - why the rush with this one? We need to work out how to handle NPOV disputes, because this won't be the last time this comes up, and we shouldn't be closing cases just because we can't be bothered working out a solution. We did it with consensus with Antifinnugor - and we can do it with NPOV here. Ambi 06:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, what new proposal? The one I made? I only made it due to some wording I didn't like for the other NPOV item. When the wording was changed, I changed my vote on the older item. --mav 09:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ambi is an idiot. Ambi 10:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Chuck_F_Proposed_decision_ea4e.html"