Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/Proposed decision

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, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Assume good faith
1) Assume good faith requires that users in their interactions with other users proceed on the basis that that other editors are trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

NPOV
2) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Verifiable information
3) Only information which is verifiable by reference to a reputable source may be included in an article. Likewise, removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper. See Verifiability


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC), with emphasis on the word relevant.
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) As per Simon. This is not a blanket endorsement of adding any and all information to an article simply because it is verifiable.
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Verifiability, not truth
4) Wikipedia is a compilation of verifiable information, not an assertion of truth, Verifiability.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ownership of articles
5) Ownership of articles discourages assertions of ownership or control over articles a user has an interest in.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

No original research
6) Original work or conclusions are not acceptable for inclusion in articles, No original research.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) If only I could vote twice for this.
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of the POV tag
7) Template:POV is properly used in support of NPOV. Use of the tag by a user who is attempting to impose a point of view on an article or suppress an opposing point of view is improper. Such improper use renders Category:NPOV disputes less useful as includes articles within it regarding which there is not an authentic NPOV dispute, but an assault on NPOV.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets and meatpuppets
8) In instances where two or more users are exhibiting substantially the same behavior they may be treated as one user.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Aggressive point of view editing by 8bitJake
1) has edited aggressively with respect to articles regarding American political figures, , , , , , , , , , , , and. His aggressive initiatives were opposed by who generally engaged in reasoned argument, , , , , , , , , and. also contested 8bitJake's point of view, editing in a reasoned manner, referring 8bitJake to relevant policies, , , , and. In June, 2006 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf, apparent sockpuppets of 8bitJake appeared, , , and bogus FAC template. Examples are from Talk:Henry M. Jackson where 8bitJake contests any mention of Jackson as a forerunner and inspiration of the neocons.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

8bitJake violations of 3RR
2) 8bitJake has been blocked briefly several time for violations of the three revert rule.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by 8bitJake
3) 8bitJake has been discourteous to other users, , , , and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Failure to assume good faith
4) 8bitJake has failed to assume good faith on the part of other users. This is seen at Talk:Henry M. Jackson where he repeatedly accuses other editors of improper motives.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Misunderstanding of NPOV and misuse of POV tag
5) There is evidence that 8bitJake misunderstands Neutral point of view as permitting removal of information which in his opinion is negative . He also inserted Template:POV into an article when his objection was that a point of view he opposed was included in the article  an outside comment. After extensive discussion the tag was removed; 8bitJake reinserted it . Another outside view


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

8bitJake has asserted ownership and control over an article
6) 8bitJake has asserted control over Henry M. Jackson and violated the consensus of other editors of the article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Tis all too easily done. Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * He seems to think of Jackson as "his senator." I'm not sure if claiming a personal affiliation with the subject is the same as claiming ownership of the article. - SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not as clear to me either. Don't think the case needs it. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake has asserted the primacy of "truth"
7) 8bitJake has asserted that he has "truth on his side".


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful of how we define "truth." Enforcing a truthful statement well supported by references and a scholarly consensus is to be commended. It is only when claiming something to be true solely on the editor's own view of its merits, that there is a problem. This does, however, seem to be one of the problem cases. - SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, per WP:V.
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Original research by 8bitJake
8) 8bitJake, using as an analogy "1 +1 = 2", has advanced original research as appropriate information for inclusion.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks by Bazzajf
9) (, a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet of 8bitJake, has engaged in personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

8bitJake banned from articles which relate to Washington State politics
1) 8bitJake is banned from articles which relate to Washington State politics.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Either remedy works for me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Either would probably be sufficient. Let's give our sysops some credit... oh, right, I see what you mean.


 * Oppose:
 * I don't think this is clear enough. Firstly "Washington politics" is a very ambiguous term. Secondly "Washington State politics" could exclude Scoop Jackson, who was a federal politician. I've proposed an alternative at 1.1. SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * 1.1 is clearer. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake banned from articles about Washington State political figures
1.1) 8bitJake is banned from editing articles about political figures from Washington State.


 * Support:
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain:

8bitJake placed on Probation
2) 8bitJake is placed on Probation. He may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16
3) The remedies applied to 8bitJake also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Violations of bans imposed by this decision may be sanctioned by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Implementation notes
''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.''


 * The majority for this case is 6.
 * All motions pass 6-0 with the exception of:
 * Finding 6 fails.
 * Remedy 1 fails.

Vote
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.


 * Ready to close, unless anyone feels like fighting over FoF 6. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not feeling espcecially in the mood for a fight. Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)