Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/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 Arbitrator is recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 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] No original research

1) No original research.

Support:
  1. Plain and simple. -- Grunt   ҈  23:36, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary

2) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Support:
  1. Imported from /Xed. -- Grunt   ҈  23:36, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Support:
  1. Imported from precedents. I've bolded the part I feel is relevant. -- Grunt   ҈  19:01, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

3.5) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Support:
  1. Also imported from precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  19:03, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
    Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This is a terrible stance to be taking, and greatly inhibits our ability to implement the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. It does not, however, mean that one necessarily has to go out of one's way to salvage ten pages of strongly biased (but referenced) nonsense. (This may not be the situation in this particular case, but this is a particularly bad precedent to be setting. If we've done it before, now would be a good time to overturn it). Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Just as Ambi puts it. This is not well worded. I'm not sure I'd agree either - getting twenty idiosyncratic referenced sources but drawing original conclusions from them is original research.
  3. Concur with Ambi and David. Neutralitytalk 05:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I see your point, although it remains true that the community generally disapproves of removal of content without very good reason -- sannse (talk) 21:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] POVs of editors

4) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Also imported from precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  19:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Splitting of articles

5) If a subsection of an article grows past a certain point in size, it is generally desirable to split that subsection into its own article and leave an appropriately-sized summary in its place (e.g. "History of (country)" articles are normally branched off from "(country)" articles).

Support:
  1. This has relevance here. -- Grunt   ҈  18:19, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. An appropriately-sized summary needs to be left in its place mav 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note that leaving the summary behind is necessary. Most POV forkers don't do this.
  7. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. While I agree with this in principle, I don't like the implied connection to this case. It seems like it could be seen to condone POV article forking, or suggesting that it is desirable to create articles dedicated to one POV on a topic (as opposed to the example used here). Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    perhaps we can clarify the difference with a wording change? -- sannse (talk) 16:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The bit about leaving a summary makes it fine by me - I frequently advocate just this when an article is getting too big or lopsided - David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    BTW, I'm pretty sure this or something like it is in the guidelines - David Gerard 18:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

6) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  22:30, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  22:30, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is important to note that this is utterly irrespective of content issues, correctness or otherwise — you are expected to behave properly.
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Not original research

1) WHEELER's contributions are not original research as demonstrated by the numerous sources on which his work is based.

Support:
Grunt   ҈  17:58, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Concur with sannse. I can come up with ten or twenty sources, and yet still produce something that is original research, depending on how I use those sources. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree with Ambi and Sannse. Getting twenty idiosyncratic referenced sources but drawing original conclusions from them is clearly original research. In fact, it's a common form of it.
  3. Prefer 1.1. -- Grunt   ҈  23:49, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) The amount sources in itself is not enough to say whether his contributions are original research. How he uses those sources is also relevant - if they are used to support his own idiosyncratic theories, then that is original research as the term is used on Wikipedia

1.1) Some of WHEELER's work has incorporated novel interpretations of source material in a way that has been regarded as original research by other contributors [1]. WHEELER has acknowledged this, for example in relation to some of the content of the article "Classical definition of republic" [2]

Support:
  1. alternative sannse (talk) 17:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Yep.
  3. Much better warning than my proposals. -- Grunt   ҈  23:49, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 15:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Volume and quality of contributions I

2) WHEELER's contributions have contributed significantly to Wikipedia's knowledge of classical studies, e.g. the article Reactionary.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  17:58, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) I think this is fair to say, although this is not my area, so I'm unable to assess this in depth.
  1. Concur with sannse. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. David Gerard 00:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm afraid I really can't say ...
  2. Agree with David. mav 15:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Concur with David. Ambi 02:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volume and quality of contributions II

3) Where an article exists on the modern sense of a word where there is also a classical sense, WHEELER's contributions to the article in question are usually significant enough to warrant a separate article for the material - e.g. Effeminacy versus Classical definition of effeminacy.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:20, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) in terms of volume, yes - the assessment of quality needs to be made by others with knowledge in this area.
Oppose:
Abstain:
I oppose this type of forking in principle - I don't know if we should be officially condoning it through a FoF. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Might need a disambig rather than a fork per se. This is an editorial issue - David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) in terms of volume, yes - the assessment of quality needs to be made by others with knowledge in this area. (decided this is a strong enough reason to abstain)
  3. editorial decision. --mav 15:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 02:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion as original research

4) Despite the volume and quality of WHEELER's contributed knowledge, many of his articles have been voted for deletion as original research - e.g. Classical definition of republic/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Classical definition of republic.

Support:
Grunt   ҈  18:03, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. We're not meant to be deciding on content in this manner - particularly when we're suggesting that the community is wrong because we say so. Wikipedia operates by consensus. If the community consensus is that an article is original research, it is original research. It is simply a power grab for us to turn around and insist that a particular POV is indeed correct, and that the community was wrong after all. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi is right, I read this as a statement of fact that the articles had been deleted, but I see that it can be interpreted as a fnding that the consensus to delete was wrong - and it's not our place to decide that -- sannse (talk) 16:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Prefer 1.1. -- Grunt   ҈  23:49, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Abstaining per Ambi and Sannse

[edit] POV of articles

5) WHEELER's articles notably exhibit a classicist point of view and frequently need to be cleaned up significantly to achieve a neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:07, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. This directly contradicts finding four. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] POV of articles II

6) The point of view expressed in WHEELER's articles is notable enough to be maintained in any later versions of the articles in question.

Support:
Grunt   ҈  18:07, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
mav 01:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I interpret this statement to mean that WHEELER's POV is so indelible that it remain in an article even after other editors have tried to tone it down ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) as 2.
    Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Um, what?! Isn't that a content decision and a blessing of a given POV? In fact, privileging said POV in "any later versions". And, moreover, giving WHEELER the power to determine whether said privileged POV is being maintained sufficiently. There are ways not to read this one that way, but ...
  2. Changed vote, per David. I don't think we should be making this call - we're not experts on the topic. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. see what you mean -- sannse (talk) 21:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I had to double check to make sure that I actually wrote this wording - it just screams to be abused. -- Grunt   ҈  23:06, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  5. Concur with above. --mav 15:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Incivility

7) WHEELER's classicist point of view has often put him at odds with those he terms modernists, which has led to all around incivility in his dealings with those users. [3] [4] [5]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. mav 01:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Lack of faith

8) WHEELER has expressed his lack of faith in other Wikipedia editors that edit articles he has originally written. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:15, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 01:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Talk page style

9) WHEELER uses extensive formatting including bold, underline and all-caps in his talk page comments to emphasise his opinion [10]. This has the effect on readers of making him appear to be shouting or ranting, and increases the impression of incivility.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 22:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. It may be a good idea to form a principle along these lines - he's certainly not the first. Ambi 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Could be instruction creep. Let's leave it at this for now - David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Fair enough. It just could be handy in a handful of cases. (Tabib comes to mind as another person prone to doing this). Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  14:55, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of Wikipedia for advocacy

10) WHEELER has stated that one of his intentions on Wikipedia is to "preserve Classical Antiquity and its meanings and language and culture" [11]. This could be regarded as an intention to use Wikipedia as a vehicle of advocacy.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. It could be. I don't interpret it as such, but it could be. -- Grunt   ҈  23:46, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Concur with Grunt. Neutralitytalk 05:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:14, 16 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] Recommendation to improve talk page style

1) An official recommendation shall be made to WHEELER to change his style of commenting on talk pages to one that give a calmer and more reasonable impression and to strive to work better with others.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. ...adjusting the wording slightly such that it reads better. -- Grunt   ҈  23:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Reminder of Wikipedia's policy on advocacy

2) WHEELER is reminded that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate a viewpoint.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Although he isn't necessarily doing this, it's good to make sure he knows that he shouldn't be doing this. -- Grunt   ҈  23:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. I modified the wording as to not imply that we are aganist WHEELER's specific viewpoint/advocacy, but aganist all advocacy. Neutralitytalk 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Recommendation to review neutral-point-of-view policy

3) Both sides of this dispute are recommended to re-read the policy on NPOV and to understand that NPOV is inclusive of all significant points of view.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oh, yes. -- Grunt   ҈  23:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Admonishment to avoid original research

4) WHEELER is admonished to take care in his writing to ensure it conforms to Wikipedia's policy on no original research. He is requested to read this page and to discuss any aspect of this that he feels are unclear with other contributors.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. As 2). -- Grunt   ҈  23:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 15:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

References aren't enough — lots of original research posters have references galore but draw apparently original conclusions from them. If your fellow editors are saying your contribution is original research, a good way out of it is to find cites that draw the same conclusions. Then show that those conclusions are a significant point of view that deserves mention. There's no sharp line on this one — it's an editorial judgement call — but if everyone else is telling you it looks like original research, it just might be - David Gerard 15:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to WHEELER: If another case opens for similar reasons, then I will not be as lenient in my voting. Consider this a warning to improve how you work with others. --mav 15:48, 16 Apr 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. Everything that could pass has passed. I don't see any point dragging out this case any longer - it's already taken far too long. Ambi 02:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. yep - agree to close (vote valid from 02:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)) -- sannse (talk) 02:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 10:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Just to pile on. -- Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)