Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/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 "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 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 passed.

On this case, 3 Arbitrators are recused (the new arbitrators, unless they choose otherwise) and 2 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority (Except where Grunt and Ambi have voted, where the majority is 5).

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 the discussion page.

[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] Temporary ban

1) Trey Stone (talk • contribs) is banned from editing any article which relates to politics pending resolution of this matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 01:31 (UTC)
  2. OK, lets give it a go -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

2) Davenbelle (talk • contribs) is banned from editing any article which relates to politics pending resolution of this matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:53, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Verifiability

1) For information to be included in Wikipedia, it must have been published elsewhere in reliable sources and those sources should be cited as references in Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Only in conjunction with 1.1 below. -- Grunt   ҈  14:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Obscure topics and dubious sources

1.1) Sometimes, especially regarding topics which have not been the subject of extensive journalistic or scholarly inquiry, published information regarding a topic is limited or available only through sources which because of their editorial policies (strong point of view) are suspect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

2) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advocacy.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Relationship of Wikipedia policies and controversial articles

4) Wikipedia policies regarding courtesy, assuming good faith, communicating about edits on the talk page of articles, producing appropriate references are especially relevant to articles which involve controversy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editing of controversial articles

5) Users who are unable or unwilling to follow the Wikipedia policies which relate to editing of controversial articles may be restricted with respect to editing in those areas.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Content of a Wikipedia article

6) The proper content of a Wikipedia article is about the subject of the article. With respect to the instant case, that subject is the journalists who have reported and commented on a number of controversial issues and their published work. It is inappropriate to insert extensive material regarding the controversial issues themselves. Information is readily available that the journalists published certain material and took the view that they took. Intrusion of the detail of the controversies themselves muddies the article and un-necessarily complicates it. These matters are more properly covered in articles which cover the controversies themselves.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This comes dangerously close to leading to content decisions. -- Grunt   ҈  21:16, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  2. Per Grunt. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree. mav 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

7) Wikipedia policy requires inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Talk pages

8) Wikipedia policy requires discussion of the content of an article when disputes arise on the talk pages of the article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Original research

9) No original research

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC) true, but not key to the case
  2. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC) - concur with sannse
  3. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

10) Wikipedia policy requires that a reputable reference be cited for material included in a Wikipedia article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC) this is prefered, but not compulsory - perhaps "where this matierial is disputed"?
  2. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

11) Sustained edit warring is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I don't think that edit warring is destructive to morals, so I changed it to morale ➥the Epopt 21:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Focus of disputes

1) User:Trey Stone has engaged in editing disputes with Davenbelle, User:Viajero and others with respect to a set of articles which generally concern journalistic reports of recent events in the political spectrum; these include Allan Nairn, Amy Goodman, Death squad, Suharto, Isle of Youth, Corporate media, Henry Kissinger, and Fidel Castro.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Trey Stone's perspective

2) It is User:Trey Stone's contention that Davenbelle, User:Viajero and others are editing from a left-wing or anti-American point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree with ambi that these are overkill, but will accept them
  7. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. We've established that there's a dispute. Do we really need another five findings? Seems like overkill. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davenbelle and Viajero's perspective

3) It seems to Davenbelle and Viajero that User:Trey Stone is discourteous and dismissive and while challenging the credibility of the sources they reference, fails to produce references on his own part while justifiying his own edits through argument rather than reference to credible sources.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. We've established that there's a dispute. Do we really need another five findings? Seems like overkill. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle fatigue

4) Trey Stone and Davenbelle have, due to a long history of struggle (in Trey Stone's case dating back to User:172, no longer an active editor), ceased attempting to discuss edits with one another, relying on repetitive reversions. They assume bad faith, make no attempt to produce references for their edits, and revert even the coding of images; see page history and talk page of Isle of Youth.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Evidence is ample. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) I see enough in the evidence to support this conclusion
  4. →Raul654 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This is a major conclusion, and yet it doesn't cite a single diff. One edit war is not enough to base this on. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Per Ambi. -- Grunt   ҈  14:23, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Nairn

[edit] Creation of the article by Viajero

5.1) On February 5, 2005, User:Viajero created the new article Allan Nairn,[1]. This article is well written, but based on sources which share Allan Nairn's (and presumably Viajero's) point of view. It characterizes Allan Nairn as a "highly-respected American investigative journalist." It includes the content of a number of Allan Nairn's published allegations, for example, the "story of the US government's role in establishing and funding the Haitian paramilitary death squad, FRAPH (the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti)," published in Nation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) although I'm not totally convinced of the need for this, I'll support as the set-up for the following two
  4. I'm of the same mind as sannse. →Raul654 19:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The ArbCom does not decide whether articles are well-written, and I don't see the need for the creeping additions of more and more findings to state what could be (and already has been) said in one concise finding. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


Abstain:

[edit] "NPOVing" by Trey Stone

5.2) Editing progressed normally for a period with most edits by Viajero until on April 24, 2005 User:Trey Stone made a number of changes with the comment, "NPOVing this sorry article" [2]. Trey Stone's edits, other than characterizing Allan Naim as a "[[left-wing politics|left-wing]]" investigative journalist, consisted of replacing language used by Allan Naim with apologetic language, for example, he replaced "death squads" with "repressive actions being taken by the country's military government." Material was also added which puts reported material in context, for example, he added "amidst a chaotic counterinsurgency campaign against Marxist guerrillas active in both urban and rural areas." to the sentence, "In 1980, Nairn visited Guatemala, in the middle of a campaign of assassination against student leaders," Particular attention was paid to the report concerning FRAPH, replacing "In an article published in The Nation in 1994, Nairn broke the story of the US government's role in establishing and funding the Haitian paramilitary death squad, FRAPH (the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti)." with "In an article published in The Nation in 1996, Nairn raised questions about possible links between the U.S. CIA, DIA, and the anti-Aristide death squad FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti). However, his report relies heavily on a single source, and the Clinton administration had publicly come out against the Haitian military regime of General Raúl Cédras, accused of supporting the group. Furthermore, the deposed Jean-Bertrand Aristide was reinstated as President of Haiti through U.S. military intervention in 1994." Trey Stone, however, cites no sources for his revisions and additions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. Weak support, because this at least has some relevance to an issue within our mandate. Still think it is unnecessary, however.
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 19:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

5.3 Following User:Trey Stone's revisions User:Viajero and others attempted discussion on Talk:Allan Nairn but this was unproductive. Edit warring has continued to the present with User:Mel Etitis and User:Davenbelle replacing Viajero as Trey Stone's adversaries. His opponents maintain that Trey Stone's edits amount to original research and characterize them as "editorializing." Trey Stone, on his part, views his additions as adding perspective, for example in this edit which he characterizes as "once again RVing the lie about unambiguous U.S. support for FRAPH." However, he cites no source other than his own reasoning. See i've proven my case, i will not discuss this any further

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:46, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. Weak support - see above. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 19:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Corporate media

6) Trey Stone (talk • contribs) complains about Davenbelle (talk • contribs) editing of Corporate media

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Davenbelle

6.1) A detailed analysis of Davenbelle (talk • contribs) edits to Corporate media shows dozens of reverts with no citation of authority and no discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Trey Stone

6.2) A detailed analysis of Trey Stone (talk • contribs) edits to Corporate media shows creation of an original research article followed by dozens of reverts with no citation of authority and no discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC) If we can remove the words "original research" in this, I will support. I don't feel I know enough to state that this is orginal research in the sense the words are used on Wikipedia.
  2. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Viajero

6.3) A detailed analysis of Viajero (talk • contribs) edits to Corporate media shows point of view copyediting without citation of sources, addition of useful information but no participation in the extensive reversions engaged in by the other editors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:37, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
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] Requirement to reference information

1) Information added to articles concerning journalistic reports of recent events in the political spectrum by Trey Stone, Davenbelle, and Viajero must include a valid reference, or it may be removed by a third party as in 2) below.

Support:
  1. I don't like the wording of which articles are covered (borrowed from Fred's FoF 1 above) but can't think right now of what a better wording would be. -- Grunt   ҈  14:31, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. The wording could be changed to "Information added to articles must include a valid reference." Fred Bauder 10:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC) Fred Bauder 20:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. In all these long findings, there's been no illustration of any referencing-related wrongdoing by either Davenbelle or Viajero. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Per Ambi. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. →Raul654 03:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of ill-referenced information

2) Information added to articles concerning journalistic reports of recent events in the political spectrum that is poorly referenced or not referenced at all may be removed on sight by individuals other than Trey Stone, Davenbelle, and Viajero.

Support:
  1. I don't like the wording of which articles are covered (borrowed from Fred's FoF 1 above) but can't think right now of what a better wording would be. -- Grunt   ҈  14:31, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. Could be changed to: "Information which is added to articles which is poorly referenced or not referenced at all may be removed." Fred Bauder 10:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC) Fred Bauder 20:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. In all these long findings, there's been no illustration of any referencing-related wrongdoing by either Davenbelle or Viajero. Ambi 13:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Per Ambi. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 15:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban on removing well-referenced information

3) Trey Stone, Davenbelle, and Viajero are forbidden from removing information added to articles concerning journalistic reports of recent events in the political spectrum which is well-referenced and are subject to twenty-four hour blocks should they do so.

Support:
  1. I don't like the wording of which articles are covered (borrowed from Fred's FoF 1 above) but can't think right now of what a better wording would be. -- Grunt   ҈  14:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. Could be changed to: "Information added to articles which is well referenced should not be removed." Fred Bauder 10:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. In all these long findings, there's been no illustration of any referencing-related wrongdoing by either Davenbelle or Viajero. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Per Ambi. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 15:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC). No evidence so far that there was any well referenced information for Davenbelle or Viajero to remove. Fred Bauder 20:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy and Trey Stone

4) User:Trey Stone is required to conduct himself with courtesy toward others while editing controversial articles which concern politics. He is required to discuss all substantial edits on the talk pages of the article edited, assume good faith and produce references for all substantial edits. He is reminded that analysis, however acute, cannot substitute for reliable references. Violations of these requirements may result in a short ban (up to a week for repeat offenses) being imposed by any administrator observing them.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC) first choice
  2. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) first choice, in combination with 5.
Oppose:
  1. Way, way too lenient. Trey Stone has put people through sockpuppet hell, has had many, many sockpuppets banned, and caused quite a lot of trouble. A caution just doesn't cut it. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Ambi. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Concur with Ambi. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


Abstain:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:25, 2005 May 26 (UTC)


[edit] Trey Stone banned from certain articles

4.1) User:Trey Stone is banned for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reluctantly, second choice. I would encourage Trey to ask for a review of this, if he can show a pattern of editing without conflict in other areas (say, in three to six months)
  4. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 03:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Davenbelle banned from certain articles

5) User:Davenbelle is banned for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC) OK, I'm convinced this is a two way problem
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Concur with Sannse
Oppose:
  1. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Repeated violations

6) In the event User:Trey Stone is unable or unwilling to conduct himself appropriately with respect to the editing of controversial political articles as evidenced by the need for repeated discipline he may be banned for up to one year from editing articles which relate to political issues. This remedy shall not be effective until at least 12 short bans have been imposed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) first choice, in combination with 4.
Oppose:
  1. Way too lenient. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. concur with Ambi ➥the Epopt 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi said it best. Neutralitytalk 06:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:24, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page discussion encouraged

7) All involved contributors are urged to make better use of talk pages, in particular to consider whether language used in articles complies with the policy of NPOV. Note that Trey Stone is not banned from any talk pages.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 22:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

1) In the event User:Trey Stone edits articles which concern politics, especially those which concern United States foreign policy he may be briefly banned, up to one week for repeated offenses. However the one year editing ban will not reset.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)</>
  3. (though I wouldn't mind if the ban was reset) Ambi 03:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. why not reset the ban? ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

1) In the event any user, either User:Trey Stone or User:Davenbelle edits articles which concern politics, especially those which concern United States foreign policy he may be briefly banned, up to one week for repeated offenses.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Neutralitytalk 07:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I have to say that this case leaves me bemused. Our standard way of writing up a case is to highlight all the issues requiring our intervention, and then to decide on appropriate remedies to solve the situation. In this case, we have a bunch of findings that give a rambling chronology of events - and miss the issues involved almost entirely, leading to a particularly odd set of remedies. Ambi 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could set forth the issues which you believe to be involved? And propose alternative principles, findings and remedies. If you think a concise global finding could be crafted please do so. Fred Bauder 13:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
What happens is that as I go through the evidence I propose findings of fact. Some of these (and principles associated with them) turn out to be dead ends when the whole picture becomes clear. Fred Bauder 22:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
That explains thing a lot more clearly, I can see where you are comming from now. -- sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

My changes are based on taking a good look at the edit history of corporate media, dozens of reverts and not one citation or one word on the talk page. Fred Bauder 20:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

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.

  1. →Raul654 03:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, remedy for Davenbelle needs to be considered and voted on. Fred Bauder 11:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    The majority on that is four, so it's passed (with Grunt and Ambi gone and the new members recused) - sannse (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. agree to close -- sannse (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Close Fred Bauder 13:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 02:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle_Proposed_decision_2ac1.html"