Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/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 4 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=

Adequate references
1) References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Articles regarding ongoing enterprises
2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Biographies_of_living_persons. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editing your own article
3) Editing an article concerning an organization you control or have a significant stake in is governed by the principles in Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged. If you do edit, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research remain in full effect.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Modified wording slightly - if you go to Starbucks once a day that doesn't mean you should avoid editing the Starbucks article.
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Requesting removal of poorly sourced negative information
4) Drawing the attention of Wikipedia users to poorly sourced negative information, especially that concerning ongoing enterprises, is encouraged. Such notice permits prompt evaluation and removal of inappropriate information.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of dispute is The Hunger Project. Issues include editing by an officer of the organization and insertion of poorly sourced critical material which relates to the history of the organization and its relationship to one of its founders Werner Erhard and EST.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though some of the sources of critical material do seem legitimate. - SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Jcoonrod
2) According to the user page of "John Coonrod is vice president and chief operating officer of The Hunger Project. Most of his edits have related to The Hunger Project.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Involvement by Danny
3), apparently acting on a complaint, made edits removing critical material from The Hunger Project , , , , and . Revert by , later restored by her , see User_talk:Danny.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Critical references
4) Some of the references used, especially to the critical material supported by Smeelgova, lead to dead links, lack a page reference, or are inaccessible to an ordinary reader.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC), though I dislike the term "ordinary reader."
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The last item is not necessarily a concern. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 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.

Material from The Hunger Project itself
1) In the absence of challenge, non-controversial material obtained from the The Hunger Project website, http://www.thp.org/ may be included in the article. Such material may be added by Jcoonrod or any other user associated with The Hunger Project. If such material is contested, in good faith, by any other user the material shall be removed unless a reliable published source is available for the information. In this context, a good faith challenge requires some reason to doubt the validity of the information.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Negative material
2) Critical information may be included in the article only if it is supported by verifiable information which has been published by a reputable source. Material lacking an adequate reference may be removed by anyone without discussion. Such removal is an exception to the three revert rule. Critical information shall be attributed to its source and be placed in context, in other words, practices which are alleged to have occurred during the organizational or formative stages of the Project shall be identified as such.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than the 3RR exception, this is normal practice. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Current editors
3) It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Stubbing of the article
4) Due to the presence of poorly sourced negative information in the history of the article, upon the motion of Jcoonrod The Hunger Project and Joan Holmes, an associated article, and their talk pages may be deleted and replaced by a stub. Any administrator may perform this action upon Jcoonrod's request.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A rulling on content. SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Per Simon.
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the complaint is well-founded, this is always true. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Continuing jurisdiction
5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction of this dispute and may, on its own motion, or on the motion of a concerned user, reopen it for further consideration.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) As ever.
 * Charles Matthews 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * 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 is 6.
 * All motions pass 6-0 except remedy 4, which 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.


 * Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. - SimonP 01:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)