Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH/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.

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 enacted.

On this case, 0 arbitrators is/are recused and 1 are inactive/away, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Avoid personal attacks

1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Editing from anonymous IPs

2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proper use of article talk pages

3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 22:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - the wording satisfies me
Nay:
  1. In a previous case, we ruled that Wikipedia articles do not contain all viewpoints, but only meritorious ones. As such, by our own logic, talk pages have to be used in some cases to discuss and debate. In practice, this is also quite common. →Raul654 18:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul has convinced me that this needs rewording at the least, and plays a small enough part in this decision to simply remove in this case -- sannse (talk) 22:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I've added: "...except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article". -- Grunt   ҈  16:53, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
    OK - unstruck vote above -- sannse (talk) 22:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Content of Wikipedia articles

4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal viewpoints

5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see [1], [2], [3], [4] and "liar"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Anonymous ips

2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Focus of controversy

3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and [5].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Generalizations

4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Heated debate

5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated [14] "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Reaction by other editors

6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Continued debate by PSYCH

7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Australian Liberal Party policies

8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum, [15], [16] and [17]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Insults and discourtesy toward PSYCH

9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense", "get a life" and [18]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) worthy of comment imo, if not of more than that in this case
  6. mav 19:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I'm not convinced these are severe enough to warrant comment (or even that they're overly patronising). Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. On second thought—agree with Ambi. Neutralitytalk 18:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Using the talk page as a forum

10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article, [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal information regarding Xtra

11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added [24] and [25]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Archiving recent posts

12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted [26], reverted, he archived it again.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Threat to revert

13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot." [27]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Failure to research the topic and cite references

14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful [28]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The argument seemed to stop, but I don't see that the focus of the discussion overly changed. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] PSYCH - personal attack parole

1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) seems rather long in this case - but... ok
  8. I disagree with sannse - given how vicious and personal the attack were, this seems rather short. →Raul654 18:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Xtra - admonished for personal attacks

2) Xtra is admonished not to respond in kind even to severely provocative personal attacks.

Aye:
These personal attacks were provoked, and did not really originate with Xtra. Grunt   ҈  01:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  1. Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC) Don't think anything particularly reaches the level of even admonishment.
  2. sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) as Delirium says. On an unofficial note though, I'd suggest that Xtra should consider this a near miss and take care in future.
  3. On reflection, agree with Delirium and sannse. -- Grunt   ҈  17:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  4. Forget the near miss nonsense; I am impressed that Xtra put up with this abuse for so long. →Raul654 18:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. This case is about PSYCH, not Xtra. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    This does not mean Xtra is free of all blame. Cases are not targeted at any one person and should cover all involved disputants. -- Grunt   ҈  16:29, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
    No, of course not. But there is no moral equivalency here. Neutralitytalk 18:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I think some things (such as the archiving of a post) are perhaps worthy of a reprimand of this nature, but I don't think the current finding of fact warrants anything at all - they're fairly minor comments. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

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

[edit] Aye

Everything likely to pass has passed. Do not close before 17:57 2 Mar 2005. -- Grunt   ҈  17:57, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
I think we can close - I don't think that more remedies are needed here. We have stated the principles that the editors should be working to, and stated where they have not done so - that's all I think is needed here for now -- sannse (talk) 01:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. I agree with these two. Ambi 04:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Reinstating Aye - vote effective 24hrs from time-stamp -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Reinstate "aye". -- Grunt   ҈  19:42, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

[edit] Nay

  1. I'm not sure we have solved this problem. I would like to see some remedy which focuses on actual research from reliable references rather than throwing generalizations around. Fred Bauder 18:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm going to interpret this as a "nay" vote. -- Grunt   ҈  18:18, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
    Oh no, please not the research remedies again. It's a neutrality problem, not a research problem. The only thing that I'd potentially add to this is a ban on editing articles related to politics. Ambi 04:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Raul's asked for more consideration on PP 3 - so I'll withdraw my Aye for the moment
    Thanks to Neutrality's last-moment pullout on FoF 9 everything is no longer passing. I cannot close the case at this time. -- Grunt   ҈  21:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
I voted Aye. FoF now has enough votes to pass. --mav 19:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_PSYCH_Proposed_decision_5288.html"