Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII/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, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] 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 "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] Content and layout of articles

1) In this matter, which concerns the article capitalism, it is not within the competence or jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee to determine the content or layout of the article, for example the nature of the introduction [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Advocacy of a point of view

2) Wikipedia is not a forum for the advocacy of a political viewpoint.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption to prove a point

3) It is not acceptable to disrupt Wikipedia, in this case normal editing of the article, capitalism, in order to prove a point.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

4) The object of Wikipedia editing is to produce an article which is useful for readers of the encyclopedia. It is not an arena for political struggle.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Research

5) Wikipedia editing requires research of secondary sources and selection of facts from them for inclusion in articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Citing of sources

6) The source of material included in a Wikipedia article should be adequately cited unless it is a matter of common knowledge.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Early history of the article capitalism

1) While the early history of editing of the article capitalism is inaccessible, the earliest material from the talk page archived on February 21, 2003 at Talk:Capitalism/archive shows personal involvement by User:Larry Sanger (sometimes editing as User:LMS), User:Jimbo Wales and User:Lee Daniel Crocker, founders and developers of Wikipedia and discussion of many of the same issues which continue to be discussed. Slrubenstein's editing of the article dates from the later part of this period.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RJII begins editing

2) Comments by other users regarding RJII's edits begin at Talk:Capitalism/archive_3#Characteristics_of_capitalist_economies which discuss the material RJII added which expresses scepticism as to whether any capitalist economy has ever existed, [2]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dispute over introduction

3) On Feb 20, 2005 a dispute began between RJII and Slrubenstein regarding the introduction to the article, Talk:Capitalism/archive_3#intro with RJII advancing a dictionary definition and Slrubenstein arguing for an operational definition listing institutions and practices, maintaining that a particular definition would be POV.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] An introductory definition?

4) The dispute between RJII and Slrubenstein soon became a dispute regarding whether there should be any introductory definition at all, Talk:Capitalism/archive_4#Capitalism_and_the_State with each stating their reasons for their editing approach.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] A dictionary definition

5) Questioned, RJII advanced a dictionary definition, but that was rejected by Slrubenstein as unacceptable Talk:Capitalism/archive_4#Capitalism_and_the_State with the comment, "A dictionary is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article." Questioned again, he advanced these two definitions as generally accepted, Definition of Capitalism, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition and Definition of capitalism, Marriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Talk:Capitalism/archive_4#Here_we_go_again. The response made to this was, "Dictionary definitions are not authoritative. It would be much better to cite an expert." (User:Rhobite).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Free market?

6) As the discussion progressed it turned out that RJII objected to a definition of capitalism which included a free market as a characteristic. RJII maintained that a Marxist point of view would be that the market under capitalism is coerced, Talk:Capitalism/archive_5#deleted_.22free_market.22_from_definition_of_capitalism, "it's POV to say that capitalism as an economic system involves a free market." "Capitalism can't be coercive and free market at the same time.", see also [3] and [4]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RJII's point of view

7) Although RJII does not give biographical details on his user page, does not discuss his interests there and declines to identify his point of view when asked [5], viewed as a whole his point of view can be characterized as taking the viewpoint that capitalism is an ideal system which has never actually been implemented. This is evident from his first edits [6] to capitalism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Point of view edit warring and lack of productive editing

8) RJII has seldom, if ever, added information to the article capitalism, concentrating his editing on disputing definitions and characterizations which contradict his point of view. He has expressed a relish for conflict [7], [8], [9] and contempt for research [10].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sources

9) RJII has generally only advanced dictionary definitions of capitalism as sources for his contentions. These definitions are sourced. He has characterized one of them as a "Marxist" definition in the talk pages but has not shown any source for this contention in the work of Karl Marx, maintaining there was no necessity to do so, it being common knowledge that Marx characterized capitalism as a system under which private interests control the means of production.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 23 Apr 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] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
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. There's no point in continuing this case any further - the original dispute appears to have long been resolved (there's now an article "definitions of capitalism" linked from the opening paragraph) and healthy amounts of interaction are occuring between the disputants (see e.g. recent edit history on capitalism and recent discussions at its talk page. Also, most of Fred's proposed findings strike me as being extraordinarily close to content decisions. I therefore move to close this case as frivolous. -- Grunt   ҈  20:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 02:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 15:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. OK sannse (talk) 15:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)