Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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 6 are inactive, so 5 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:

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Appropriate weight for speculative theories
2) It is said in Neutral_point_of_view that "...the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory...". Indeed, when consulted, it did contain the following language:

In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but ancient Greek philosophers and, in the Middle Ages, thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas believed that it was spherical.

A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150 foot (50 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.

By linking to flat Earth, the possibility of extensive treatment of a generally discredited theory is contemplated,

"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."

The question of how to treat speculative linguistic or historical theories which have found some traction in popular imagination is not specifically addressed, but considering the purpose of NPOV to permit fair representation of all significant view points, and considering the flat earth example, it would seem that they should be briefly mentioned and put into perspective in articles which rely on mainstream scientific sources, and only fully explicated in separate articles which clearly identify them as speculative.

Please note that Neutral point of view as written does not adequately address the question of how to treat instances where one point of view has overwhelming academic support while the other viewpoint is speculative, or held only in popular culture.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Too content oriented. Case doesn't need this. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * wordy and unnecessary ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the Epopt and Jayjg here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * There is a serious point here, but maybe a tighter principle would get more support? Charles Matthews 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
3) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
4) Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * May be, not should be. Situational call. Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Kven-User
1) Kven-User has edited as, and many other accounts and ips which focus on the Kven people, ethnic Finns who live in northern Norway. See http://www.ub.uit.no/arkiv/maanedens/1999/199906e.htm for an off-Wikipedia webpage regarding the Kven.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edits by Kven-user
2) Kven-user's edits to Kven and related articles are characterized by aggressive biased editing, original research, and sustained conflict.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Continued editing
3) Most of the sockpuppets used by Kven-user are indefinitely blocked and he has not participated in this arbitration case. However he continues to edit making these edits on October 6, 2006 to  as  and  as . He had recently edited on October 3rd as . See also this edit of September 23.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, also Correcting misbeliefs, Old lock smith, Anthony "the looker", Essayah Narrayah, Erroll Van Dyke, Choose a username, Orphan Andy, Something to add ?, Something missing ?, Let me add then, Friendly request, Danniel D., Gunnar Holm 2, Greate one, Finnish writers, Greate account, Vadso, Sami Saga, Pudeo, Irrawaddy, and Beautiful weather CheckUser reveals since Fred wrote this proposal. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further CheckUser reveals new vandalism-only accounts used on October 3 and October 20, including User:Ustinov 100, User:Orlando199, User:Stopping Wikipedia vandalism, User:Chess Fred, User:Assemply line, User:Recorded history, and User:Ulf Lundgren 9. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Kven-user's controversial source
4) Kven-user's generally quoted source is Kyösti Julku of Oulu University. He is one of a small group which have advanced a speculative theory which has received some attention in the Finnish popular press, Uralic Linguistics Vs. Voodoo Science. His theories are mentioned briefly at Kvens_of_the_past.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC
5) Many of the principals in this case participated in Requests for comment/Kven users RfC.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Kven-user limited to one account
1) Kven-user shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. The account selected may be communicated to the Arbitration Committee using the arbcom-l mailing list, Arbcom-l at Wikipedia.org. Pending selection of an account Kven-user may not edit Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Kven-user placed on probation
2) Kven-user is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Kven.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Further consideration
3) Should Kven-user establish an account and edit responsibly, upon application to the Arbitration Committee, consideration may be made of lessening the restrictions placed on him and considering whether the viewpoints he has advanced are fairly treated.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Doesn't need to be said, and I'm wary of "considering whether the viewpoints he has advanced are fairly treated". Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Kven-user banned
4) The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic.


 * Support:
 * The sheer amount of disruptive sockpuppeting makes this reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only gotten worse. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for too long. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Let him designate an account and see how it goes. Fred Bauder 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edits prior to selection of a username
1) Should Kven-user edit under any username or ip prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
2) Should Kven-user violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Kven.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General
The question of whether the point of view which Kven-user has been attempting to express is fairly represented has not been addressed. I believe his activities may have resulted in excessive deletion of it, but that is difficult to address with him behaving the way he has been. Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.''


 * On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 6 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

At this point all principles pass except #2 "Appropriate weight for speculative theories"; all Findings of Fact pass; all remedies and enforcement provisions pass except #3 "Further consideration." Thatcher131 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Everything that is going to pass has passed. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close ➥the Epopt 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)