Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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

  • Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yea 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) As Rex071404 has continued to engage in personal attacks following the commencement of Arbitration proceedings, a ban on editing any article other than the pages concerning this Arbitration case and his user and user talk pages is imposed pending a final decision in this matter.

Yea:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yes, on further thought, too broad. James F. (talk) 15:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. User:Neutrality and the rest of the aggressive partisans on the other side would also have to be banned for this to be fair. Fred Bauder 14:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC). In addition it is too broad Fred Bauder 04:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 09:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Martin 12:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (unsure)

2) Rex071404 is banned from editing the pages John Kerry; John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004; and John Kerry VVAW controversy until the final decision is made in this matter. This is based on his churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits: [1], [2], [3] ; [4], [5], [6] and [7]

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 04:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 09:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 12:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 15:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

1) Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 1:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 03:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 1:
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 1:


2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 2:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 03:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 17:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 2:
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 2:

3) An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 3:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 03:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) - To quote myself from a simliar consideration in the Avala case - To do otherwise would be an invitation for crackpots and POV pushers.
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 3:
  1. While technically correct this statement is misleading since we do want a great deal of detail, just not all in the same article (which should be a summary but subtopics should lead to other summaries and so on). mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 17:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) (I think this is a matter for the community to decide, and while it's been heavily discussed, I'm not aware of any conclusion having been reached that would support all of the above)
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 3:

3.5) An encyclopedia article is not a complete exposition of all possible details regarding its subject.

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 3.5:
  1. Martin 15:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (ahem, apologies for the broken proposal here previously).
  2. James F. (talk) 02:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I could have sworn the two priciples were different, at first)
  3. This wording is also acceptable, for the same reasons as above. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 3.5:
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 3.5:

4) The Arbitration Committee may issue a valid decree which requires that editing of the content of a Wikipedia article conform to Wikipedia policies including those set forth in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This power does not extend to determining the content of the article merely to requiring that editing of the article conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Specific content is the responsibility of the Wikipedia editors who edit the article.

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 4:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:45, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 17:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) (we're allowed to issue decrees. This type of decree seems fine to me)
  4. James F. (talk) 13:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 4:
  1. Mav seems confused about the wording, and so am I. Further - I don't see what the point in issuing a decree telling people to follow our guidelines does -- they *are* expected to follow our guideines, regardless of whether or not the arbcom specifically tells them to. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 4:
  1. Huh? This sounds like a power grab but I'm not sure due to the confusing wording. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


5) Wikipedia editors are expected to be courteous and respectful towards other editors, especially those they may have a dispute with, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette which specifially admonishes editors to "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 5:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:17, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 22:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 5:
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 5:

6) Regardless of the ratio of editing participants who advocate particular points of view regarding a matter, Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy mandates that coverage of points of view in an article reflect the societal significance of those points of view, not the variable perspectives and ratio of Wikipedia editors.

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 6:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:16, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 6:
  1. Martin 15:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Should bias be corrected by us trying to write from a broad perspective, or by recruiting editors from broader backgrounds? I don't believe the NPOV policy mandates (or prohibits) the first alternative.
  2. James F. (talk) 02:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Agree with Martin.)
  3. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) - For the same reasons I gave in proposed principle #3.
Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 6:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] John Kerry article

1) User Rex071404 and others including the complaining witnesses, Neutrality, Wolfman, and JamesMLane have in the heat of the US Presidential election focused on the article John Kerry and carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail. See [8] and [9]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 03:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 13:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 01:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 05:21, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discourtesy

2) User Rex071404 has in his conversations on the talk page of John Kerry and related articles and in his edit summaries been discourteous toward other editors which who he was in dispute.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 01:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 13:11, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Edits by User Bkonrad

3) User Bkonrad has made several edits which Rex071404 complains of, [10] and [11]. In the first Bkonrad is somewhat insulting, characterizing one of Rex071404's logical theories as "preposterous nonsense"; the second is unobjectionable. The complaints against Bkonrad's edits in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence are not linked to specific edits and cannot be fully evaluated but do seem to be somewhat lacking in Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 01:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 13:11, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Systemic imbalance

4) Due to the literary nature of Wikipedia, participation in Wikipedia editing to a certain extent selects for a liberal viewpoint with the result that supporters of George W. Bush such as Rex071404 tend to be greatly outnumbered by supporters of John Kerry, see David Brooks NY Times, 9-11-04

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:49, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 15:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) While I suspect a numerical imbalance exists, I believe the international nature of Wikipedia is likely to be a greater cause of this imbalance.
  2. James F. (talk) 02:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Again, agree with Martin)
  3. →Raul654 13:11, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) - agree with Martin.
  4. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Selection for liberal viewpoint

4.1) Participation in Wikipedia editing to a certain extent selects for a liberal viewpoint with the result that supporters of George W. Bush such as Rex071404 tend to be greatly outnumbered by supporters of John Kerry, see David Brooks NY Times, 9-11-04

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:30, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 02:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I suppose that this will do.)
  3. →Raul654 13:11, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 13:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) ("liberal" in US terms, perhaps, but not in world terms. AFAICT)
Abstain:
  1. I'm not comfortable with saying that. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Feelings of being ganged up on

5) Rex071404 felt that he was out-numbered and ganged-up on as he edited the article John Kerry by supporters of John Kerry who were unfairly editing the article to minimize the point of view he was advocating and maximize their point of view.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:30, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 02:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 13:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) (though appearances can be deceptive)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Amen, Martin.)
  5. →Raul654 13:11, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Possible motivation of opponents

6) The complaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, may have felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:30, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 13:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) ("may have felt"? Anything's possible.)
  2. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - agree with Martin
  3. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 02:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Note: I am slightly unsure of this so have moved to Abstain for the time being; if I was to vote for this, it would be on the understanding that this was not a criticism of the complaining witnesses James F. (talk) 23:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Agree with James F. to a certain extent -- I think it might be a reasonable criticism, but it's not something I think the AC should 'officially' criticize)

7) Rex071404 habitually and aggressively edits Wikipedia articles which relate to the politics of the United States from a partisan point of view, see Talk:Stolen Honor and its archive Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Difficulties in reaching agreement

8) It has with respect to a number of articles which concern the politics of the United States proven impossible for many editors to reach agreements with Rex071404 despite exhaustive attempts to negotiate.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] User:216.153.214.94

8) During the course of arbitration Rex071404 ceased editing under that user name and began editing as User:216.153.214.94. See page history of Dedham, Massachusetts

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:21, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 15:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit war at Dedham, Massachusetts

9) Editing as User:216.153.214.94, Rex071404 has engaged in a protracted edit war at Dedham, Massachusetts in which User:Antaeus Feldspar, User:AlistairMcMillan, User:Ambi, User:RickK, User:Gamaliel, User:Jerzy and User:Violetriga have participated. This edit war originated in a dispute between Rex071404 and Antaeus Feldspar respecting this content which Rex071404 repeated inserted into the article.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:54, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 15:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Issue of edit war and taunting

10) The edit war at Dedham, Massachusetts continued to be over insertion of the same paragraph and was at times accompanied by taunting as in this edit by Violetriga and this edit by Ambi.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 15:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Were the edit summaries the best thing to say? No. But are they "taunts"? Certainly not. And I don't think we need punish every sign of frustration with a user if that user is disrespecting policy by repetitive reversion, and if the AC has dragged its feet on finishing a case, nay, two cases, brought against him.)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (as jwros)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jw
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comment:
  • Sorry but can I just say that it wasn't a taunt but an ironic joke that the 80th (or so) revert had happened, with multiple people reverting the edits of one user that didn't get the message. It should not have broken the three revert rule, hence my request for protection. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Retaliatory vandalism

11) Editing anonymously as User:216.153.214.94 retaliated by engaging in vandalism, blanking an opponent's (Violetriga's) home page with the comment, "delete vandal's home page". User:Violetriga is a well-established Wikipedia user but participated in the edit war at Dedham, Massachusetts.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:21, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 15:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) (noting, though, that the final remark is a mild rebuke -- after all, there seems to have been consensus, given the number of editors reverting Rex)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Justification of reversion by reference to arbitration

12) Following his [probably initial] reversion removing the insertion of the disputed material by Rex071404, Antaeus Feldspar justifies it by questioning not only its relevance to Dedham, Massachusetts but also justifies the reversion by linking "the situation" to Rex071404's arbitration case.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:25, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 15:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Reluctantly...I think it wise not to make such a link, but again, I think it is somewhat understandable.)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (too petty to comment)
Abstain:

[edit] Problems with negotiation

13) Discussion on Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts by Rex071404 and Antaeus Feldspar was quite unproductive with much repeating of entrenched positions. It was only when a uninvolved party [[User:Netoholic] makes this suggestion that some sense of possible alternatives to polarized versions was inserted into the discussion.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Yay for Netoholic!)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - Ditto
  3. Define 'unproductive' mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Repeating established postions over and over without doing any additional research or suggesting any alternatives which could potentially satisfy both parties to the dispute. Fred Bauder 04:50, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of book to dispute

14) Although there is a book A New England Town: The First Hundred Years : Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736 (Norton Essays in American History) ISBN 0393954595 which concerns the early history of the town which Rex071404 repeatedly refers to and which is available used for about $6.00 including postage, the edits to the article show no sign that either he or the other participants in the edit war consulted or used any material from it or that any material in the book is relevant to either of the polarized versions of the article.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (but I've not read the book either, so how can I be sure?)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Content issues are beyond our jurisdiction. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Relevance of internet link cited

15) There is some material available on the internet which relates to church-state matters with respect to Dedham, Massachussets. It concerns Massachusetts litigation regarding appointment of the parish minister by the town of Dedham in contradition to the appointment desired by church members [12]. However, despite being the link incorporated by Rex071404 into the material he desired to insert, it contains no material which relates generally to the basis for the establishment clause in the United States Constitution. It was Antaeus Feldspar's contention that he had included the material from this source in the article [13].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Problems with researching

16) Considering the findings above which relate to editing of Dedham, Massachusetts, it is apparent that Rex071404 is unable or unwilling to engage in research with respect to established knowledge at a level of competance adequate for contributing productively to Wikipedia as he cites sources which he has not consulted (at least recently) or which contain information which differ from the information which he claims they support.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Weak aye. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] bulldog tenditiousness

17) Rex071404's problems with understanding and using references are compounded by bulldog tenditiousness which result in revert wars of such an egregious intensity that it results in recruitment of other editors who jump in to assist Rex071404's opponents creating a general uproar, see the edit history of Dedham, Massachusetts and John Kerry.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:31, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Petty offenses

18) In reaction to Rex071404 a number of those who engaged in disputes with him and participated in the arbitration have committed various petty offenses, some of which are mentioned in other proposed findings of fact including personal attacks [14], taunting of Rex071404, aspersions on his honesty [15] and tag team reverting, see page history of Dedham, Massachusetts. Rex071404, in turn, has recipricated.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:59, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

1) Rex071404's cross-complaint that the complaining witnesses "abused the Wiki process by bringing an Arbitration complaint against Rex071404 prior to exhausting attempts at dialog, so as to silence the one strong dissenting voice on John Kerry" is without merit. There were extensive efforts to engage in dialog. There is a great deal of evidence of distress on the part of the complaining witnesses due to the conflict but not of intent to silence Rex071404.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:11, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) It is not possible for the Arbitration committee to deal with Rex071404's cross-complaint that "Neutrality in particular, in light of his knowledge of and familiarity with Wiki methods, could easily have taken a less confrontational approach with me than he has". It is true of all Wikipedia users that they could do better.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:11, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) No penalties shall attach to the various "petty offenses" which parties to this matter committed during the course of this protracted dispute. This is partially due to contraints of time and energy and partially in response to recognition that the parties mutually provoked one another.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Remedies

1) Rex071404 and the users who have been involved with him in the controversy regarding the editing of the article John Kerry are encouraged to restore that article to an encyclopedia article which sets forth John Kerry's biography and background, replacing detailed blow-by-blow accounts of current affairs which relate to the 2004 Presidential election campaign with brief summaries along with links to particular controversies which have arisen during the campaign.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:35, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 01:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I don't think mav's objection makes the above remedy unworkable -- it's merely additional good advice)
Nay:
  1. Move the detailed content to appropriately named daughter articles and leave summaries at John Kerry. This has already been done for his campaign article. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Mav. James F. (talk) 14:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) It is not our job to determine article content.
Abstain:

1.5) Rex071404 and the users who have been involved with him in the controversy regarding the editing of the article John Kerry are encouraged to restore that article to an encyclopedia article which sets forth John Kerry's biography and background, free from blow-by-blow accounts of current affairs which relate to the 2004 Presidential election campaign. The exact manner by which this takes place is a matter for the editors of the article to decide.

Aye:
  1. Martin 01:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 02:11, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 02:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) It is not our job to determine article content.
  2. Agree. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 01:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Rex071404 is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too strong. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Martin 15:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:49, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Presumably this will take place, as normal, after any ban, below. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


4) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article at any time for one year.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Prefer this to
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Too strong(?) James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. too long and what about legit reverts, such as the removal of vandalism? mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 00:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Acceptable but prefer 4 above)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Not comfortable with this. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (obviously such footnotes or comments can be removed or moved to Talk in subsequent edits)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Only if challenged. I added [disputed] mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Nice idea, but I'm not sure that it is workable. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

1) Edits by any user which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:05, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. We should not be limiting what people who are not part of this arbitration may do. mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Too broad; outside our mandate. James F. (talk) 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Election over now.
  4. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.5) Edits by the participants in this matter: Wolfman, JamesMLane, Gamaliel, Gzornenplatz, Lyellin, Neutrality, John Kenney, Bkonrad, Rex071404 and Ambi which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:36, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Election over now.
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pointless now mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


2) Edits (including those whose edit summaries offend) by Rex071404 to John Kerry and related articles or their talk pages which contain insulting language directed towards those he views as his political opponents may be removed by any user. Attempts by Rex071404 to revert such removals shall justify a short ban which may be imposed by any sysop.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:30, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 01:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Edits by user Rex071404 during the period of his ban to any article which concerns United States politics may be removed by any user.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:29, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. If passed, of course. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Any sysop may impose a short ban (one day or up to one week for repeat offenses) of Rex071404 should he revert or reinsert any material removed by another user from an article which concerns United States politics during the period of his ban.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:29, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

5) This decision shall apply to User:216.153.214.94 and any other username or ip which Rex071404 may utilize.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Perhaps, "may be deemed to be using"? James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

6) In the event Rex071404 makes an edit which cites no authority or an inappropriate authority it may be removed by any other user.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Don't think that this is workable. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


7) In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. ... and remove his ability to help fight vandalism? Maybe... James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

Regarding the request for a temporary injunction restricting Rex071404 from editing John Kerry and related articles, I have looked at the history of that page and its talk page and find there is no danger of irreparable harm to Wikipedia should Rex071404 continue to edit the page. I find that, while aggressive, Rex071404 is no more so than the complaining witness, User:Neutrality. Parties on both sides of the issues surrounding John Kerry are aggressively pushing points of view but are being corrected by other users such as User:AlistairMcMillan. The article is a focus of attention by many users, some of whom can be expected to rectify and moderate the attempts of partisans such as Rex071404 and Neutrality to insert their point of view. Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position regarding temporary relief based on the most recent edits by Rex071404 to John Kerry. One set of reverts was over an absurdly petty matter of phrasing, others are over efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view into the article. The article needs to be about John Kerry, not a blow by blow account of the ebb and flow of mud slinging efforts. Fred Bauder 05:01, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I drafted a proposed temporary order which would also have restricted User:Neutrality and extended also to the analogous Bush articles but when I began looking for examples I found mostly constructive edits by Neutrality, at least to George W. Bush, so abandoned that idea. Fred Bauder 14:43, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Example of fixing the article

With respect to the proposed remedy and enforcement mechanism I have proposed, for example the detailed information about each wound suffered and act performed by John Kerry during his tour of duty and the story related by each witness might be replaced by a brief reference to the fact that a controversy has arisen during the campaign regarding his actions and medals together with a link to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I have removed this from the remedy, because although it is listed as an example, it addresses specific content. Fred Bauder 14:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Using the guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style would be better. That way John Kerry article would be a summary of his whole life while daughter articles can go into detail about some parts of his life. --mav 05:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You're missing the point, mav. The exact question of how to do this is a matter for editors, not arbitrators. The point is that John Kerry should probably be a general encyclopedia article. The question of how to get there from here is a seperate mattter. Martin 23:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of call for ban

This complex of disputes goes on and on and gets worse and worse. Although some of those who complain regarding Rex071404 have offended in some ways themselves, the one "keeping the hell agoing" is Rex071404. Fred Bauder 16:35, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting frustrated -- the longer we delay, the worse Rex gets. Now he's stalking his perceived enemies to non-political articles. If it wouldn't delay things for weeks, I'd propose an outright ban. He is displaying obvious contempt for policy, decency, and this proceeding. Jwrosenzweig 20:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Since Rex has left Wikipedia, there is no point is prolonging this matter and keeping it here. I move that the matter be closed and archived, subject to reactivation if Rex returns. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think non-arbitrators are allowed to make motions, but I agree with the reasoning so I'll make it instead. →Raul654

I know I'm not supposed to make comments here, but it doesn't seem like anyone has read the talk page - Rex has not left, as he just voted on Neutrality's adminship request. Ambi 23:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. Close the case, subject to re-activation. →Raul654 04:42, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
    He just voted. He hasn't left, so keep it open. →Raul654 17:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. James F. (talk) 17:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. No, soldier on... Fred Bauder 15:34, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Per Fred, Martin 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)