Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/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, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 4 is/are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

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] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] NPOV

1) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy contemplates inclusion of all significant information and viewpoints regarding a topic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of sourced information

2. It is inappropriate to remove relevant well-sourced information from an article, especially to advance a point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Argument and original research

3) Argument, however perceptive, cannot substitute for research in reputable references, see Wikipedia:Original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] User names and locus of conflicts

1) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) edits to Wikipedia articles which concern areas of political or social conflict are the locus of this dispute. Complaints include removal of information in order to advance conservative POV goals as well as addition of material for the same purpose.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of information

2) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) has removed sourced information from articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#The_Passion_of_the_Christ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#Katherine_Harris.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Argumentative POV editing

3) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) engages in argumentative POV editing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#Bill_Maher

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 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] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Old Right placed on Probation

1) Old Right (talk · contribs) and OldRight (talk · contribs) are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Old Right from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Old Right must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC) - in reply to Epopt's comments, he still has access to the talk page
  3. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt(Vote added by Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) because the proposal has been changed accordingly)
    Though it means I must pass up Theresa's (tater set honk) offer on my talk page of punishing her, I ratify her addition of my vote ➥the Epopt 00:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
"Old Right must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I so that other admins can review."? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I will support this once a mechanism is in place to ensure OldRight is notified of any bans, and to provide redress against vindictive administrators ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I would vote for that ➥the Epopt 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to those who have abstained. I have added requested language to the proposed decision and also modified Wikipedia:Probation. Fred Bauder 13:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by ban

1) Should Old Right, using any account, edit any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly banned from Wikipedia, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[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. I think we can close this one now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, close. James F. (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 03:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Close ➥the Epopt 14:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
So closed. James F. (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)