Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

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 she/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 1 is inactive, so 7 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.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Editing regarding a subject you are involved with[edit]

1) It is not forbidden to edit regarding a subject you are involved with. If discretion is used and sources appropriate to the subject are consulted, a user may do so. Tendentious editing in such a circumstance may result in banning from editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous regarding other users even when provoked. It is not a defense to charges of discourtesy that the other user acted improperly.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Refactoring of talk pages[edit]

3) Talk pages of articles may be archived from time to time. Archiving may involve refactoring, with older material which remains relevant retained and newer material which is repetitive or resolved being archived. Unless abuse is pronounced and purposeful, errors or differences in opinion regarding refactoring are not subject to sanction.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

4) Wikipedia:No original research provides that information known only to the user or the result of his or her researches are not acceptable sources for information in a Wikipedia article. The source must be a reliable published report.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

... so no information without an adequate source[edit]

4.1) Users may not add information to Wikipedia articles which do not have a source in a reliable published source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. conflicts with WP:BITE ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Goes too far. The problem comes with attempts to evade the NOR policy. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too far. An ideal, but not a realistic condition. Yet. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per James. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I doubt I should support a rule I regularly break. Fred Bauder 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

... so no preventing removal of unsourced information[edit]

4.2) Users may not interfere with the correction or removal of information from a Wikipedia article that does not have a reliable published source.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems sensible. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer this version. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. but prefer 4.4 Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Wording unclear; see below. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. But objecting via Talk page discussion, for example, is not a problem. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that that really comes under "interference". James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... so no preventing removal of unsourced information 2[edit]

4.3) User may not interfere with correction or removal of information from a Wikipedia article if they have been asked for, but not provided, a reliable source for that information.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, especially in this case. Fred Bauder 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I disagree. This adds an extra level of undesirable bureaucracy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I dislike this, too. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

...so once it is established that there is no reliable source...[edit]

4.4) Once it is clear, either through discussions regarding the matter or by independent investigation, that information is not supported by a reliable and verifiable source the material may be removed by any user and should not be restored. It is not an acceptable editing practice to repeatedly restore unsupported information.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is OK, though "a serious offense" is a bit odd. "Egregiously rude" might be better, or something... James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changed to "not an acceptable editing practice". Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tendentious editing[edit]

5) Sustained aggressive point of view editing, especially when accompanied by edit warring, is unacceptable and may result in a ban from the affected article, or, in extreme cases, in a ban from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is Reed College with IronDuke focusing on alleged problems [1] and Gnetworker taking a more balanced point of view [2].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gnetwerker has been discourteous to IronDuke[edit]

2) Gnetwerker has sometimes been discourteous to IronDuke, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence#Gnetwerker engaged in personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Calls for recusal by IronDuke[edit]

3) Based on Gnetwerker's apparent connection with Reed College, IronDuke has repeatedly called for Gnetwerker "recusing" himself from editing the article. However Gnetwerker's edits are within the usual accepted bounds of Wikipedia editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Gnetwerker[edit]

4) Gnetworker, using either his status with Reed College or his investigatory skills, has from time to time relied on interviews with persons associated with Reed College or internal documents of Reed College as sources, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence#Original research by Gnetwerker.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Low quality tendentious editing by IronDuke[edit]

5) IronDuke has added derogatory material to Reed College which was not based on a reliable published source [3].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Current editing of Reed College[edit]

6) While Gnetwerker continues to edit Reed College on a regular basis, IronDuke has not edited since January 18 when he was involved in the controversy over drug use.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Gnetwerker cautioned regarding discourtesy[edit]

1) Gnetwerker is cautioned regarding discourtesy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gnetwerker cautioned regarding original research[edit]

2) Gnetwerker is cautioned to avoid using unpublished material as a source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

IronDuke cautioned regarding unsourced material[edit]

3) IronDuke is cautioned regarding use of information, especially derogatory material, which does not have an adequate source in a reliable published source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Gnetwerker is cautioned regarding discourtesy and to avoid using unpublished material as a source. IronDuke is cautioned regarding use of information, especially derogatory material, which does not have an adequate source in a reliable published source. Johnleemk | Talk 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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're done here. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 10:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 05:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. close ➥the Epopt 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734056"