Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

User:66.20.28.21 contribs and other accounts

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to 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, against, or to abstain 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.

Contents

[edit] Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Advocacy or propaganda

1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fred Bauder 15:10, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] No original research

2) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  17:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 04:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion of controversial edits

3) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)2.1 is better
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 17:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Where is the policy here? This is certainly a good way to act, and the way I always work, but a principle stating this has far reaching implications for the way many of our contributors edit.
  2. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefer the wording below Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.1) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 14:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) (either this or 3.2, not both. 3.2 is my prefered choice - 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  00:54, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 14:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. True, but only the first step in dispute resolution Fred Bauder 17:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
Abstain:

3.2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to consult relevant Wikipedia policies (in this case Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and utilize the dispute resolution process rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (either this or 3.1, not both. This is my prefered choice)
  3. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) - This is pretty much the same as above.
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Ambi 01:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Unnecessary. We get the point in 3.1 - there's no need to vote on a third draft.
  2. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3.1 gets the point across

[edit] Neutral point of view includes only significant published viewpoints

4) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  03:54, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Edit warring and point of view editing

1) 66.20.28.21 (and the user's other accounts) has engaged in edit wars to advocate a point of view with respect to Phil Gingrey [1] and other articles. The point 66.20.28.21 repeatedly seeks to make is that Phil Gingrey, who is both a medical doctor and US Representative from Georgia, violates his medical ethics by the political positions he takes with respect to the use of medical information about prisoners being held by the United States and other matters involving "medical torture".

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:59, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fred Bauder 15:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Original research

2) Googling for the information which 66.20.28.21 seeks to add to Wikipedia produces only a few hits on Wikipedia and related websites consisting of the material added by 66.20.28.21.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:07, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 04:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  04:51, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 05:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. May be true and is certainly a worrying sign of original research, but WP:VFD has brought home to me that Google is not the be-all and end-all. I prefer other evidence of original research, such as a profound lack of checkable references - David Gerard 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to discuss issue

3) Despite attempts to communicate with the user, the user has made no attempts to discuss their changes to the articles in question.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].. etc. He has however stopped discussing more recently.
  2. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Lots of tenditious discussion, but not much regarding the Wikipedia policies of No original research and Neutral point of view Fred Bauder 16:07, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sannse is of course correct
  6. Neutralitytalk 04:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Insufficient discusson of issues

3.1) Despite attempts to communicate with the user, the user has made insufficient effort to discuss their changes to the articles in question and how they relate to the Wikipedia policies of No original research and Neutral point of view.

Aye:
  1. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  01:01, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 11:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 14:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 16:07, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 04:22, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Ban from editing certain disputed articles

1) The user in question is not permitted to edit Phil Gingrey, Rick Crawford, or medical torture until such time as the user is willing to communicate with other users regarding their changes.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:06, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. He just needs to quit adding original research Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) restrictions on these articles are appropriate I think, but see below for comments on communication.
  2. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) - Eh, I'm not really sure convinced is necessary. This user's behavior has been inappropriate, but I am not sure it is ban-worthy. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Needs a firmer end criterion.

[edit] Required to comply with NPOV

2) The user in question is referred to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and reminded that all edits must comply with this principle.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 14:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. True, but all Wikipedia editors are Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 05:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] original research

3) Original research by 66.20.28.21 concerning the disputed issues they have raised concerning Phil Gingrey, Rick Crawford, medical torture or related articles shall not be placed in any Wikipedia article and may be removed by any user.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 04:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) If the user objects, they can supply checkable references.
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. I really don't believe this has much to do with the complaint. -- Grunt   ҈  03:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes regarding original research

4) Should a dispute arise between 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) and any other user regarding whether information they seek to add is original research or has an independent source, 66.20.28.21 shall utilize the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process rather than engaging in struggle using reverts.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (refers to any dispute, rather than just those particular articles)
  3. Ambi 02:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not particularly relevant in view of the ban on editing articles. -- Grunt   ҈  17:56, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
    If the ban fails to pass, it sure is. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    There already is (and already was at the time of my vote) a majority in favour of the full ban. -- Grunt   ҈  04:56, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
    But as sannse pointed out. This refers to any dispute, rather than just those articles that the ban would cover. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Reversion if no discussion

1) Edits made by the user in question 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) to Phil Gingrey, Rick Crawford, or medical torture may be reverted by any user at any time unless the the user in question 66.20.28.21 (or an account thereof) demonstrates some form of communication before making edits.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Discussion needs to focus on showing an adequate independent source Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) - I think the problem is both lack of NPOV understand and a failure to communicate properly (or, lately, even attempt communication)
Nay:
  1. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) vague wording (do "any user" and "unless the user" point to different users?)
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) see below, communication is not the major problem in my view - the neutrality of the edits and the apparent inability to understand NPOV is.

1a) Edits made by the user in question 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) that do not conform to the Wikipedia's NPOV policy can be reverted by any user at any time. The the user in question 66.20.28.21 should not replace any such edit (using any account or IP) without first agreeing the inclusion and wording with other editors on the talk page. Editors are encouraged to assist by suggesting alternative wording where possible. In all cases, it should be made clear to the user 66.20.28.21, via an edit summary or talk page comment, that the reversion is on the grounds of non-neutrality.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 14:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) vague wording (do "any user" and "the user in question" point to different users?)
  4. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:12, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) - I think the problem is both lack of NPOV understand and a failure to communicate properly (or, lately, even attempt communication)
Nay:
  1. Too much misunderstanding of NPOV for this to work. It was not that the edits were controversial but that they were his own product unsupported by an independent source. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Temporary bans for infractions

2) If the the user in question 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) makes edits to the articles in question without discussion, the account that made the edit may be tempbanned for up to 24 hours. Administrators making this ban should notify the user 66.20.28.21 that their ban may be lifted if the user 66.20.28.21 demonstrates a willingness to communicate.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Again discussion needs to focus on an adequate independent source, not on issues of "right" and "wrong" Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) see below.

2a) If the user in question 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) replaces edits removed as above (1a), the account that made the edit may be tempbanned for up to 24 hours. Administrators making this ban should notify the user 66.20.28.21 that their ban may be lifted if the user 66.20.28.21 demonstrates a willingness to comply with the NPOV policy.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 14:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 14:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Temporary ban for replacement of original research

3) 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) may be temporarily banned (one day for inital offenses, up to one week for repeated offenses) if he places original research or reinserts it after it has been removed into the disputed articles without establishing and citing an independent, relible source for the information. The blocking administrator may use his/her discretion in determining what an independent, reliable source is.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Stating it this strongly is needed here IMO
  3. Ambi 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 04:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 04:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not needed with the passing of the full ban. -- Grunt   ҈  04:59, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Grunt here. What's the point in having this if the user is banned from editing the articles in question? If the wording is changed to "any article" rather than " the disputed" articlesI'd support. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I think the problem here is much more about a lack of understanding of our NPOV policy that a lack of discussion. The lack of discussion seems to have developed from 66.20. not being able to persuade people to his point of view - the inability to understand our policy and how it should be applied came first. I don't think insisting on discussion is going to change this. -- sannse (sometime when I forgot to sign.)

I've made changes to the wording to try and remove the ambiguity about "the user". I think this makes the meaning clear, but doesn't change the intent at all -- sannse (talk) 12:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This guy is pretty creative, even entertaining, but exhibits absolutely no clue as to the requirement that statements, especially controversial true statements, need to have some reputable source. Fred Bauder 02:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. I think we're done here. Ambi 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Done and done. I'll come back and clean this up later when I have some more time to do so. All cleaned up too. -- Grunt   ҈  14:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_User%7E66.20.28.21_and_other_accounts_Proposed_decision_7a41.html"