Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight

Case Opened on 19:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on suggestions for a proposed decision at /Workshop. After development of a proposed decision provisions of it will be voted on at /Proposed decision. Motions by parties may be made and comments added by both the parties and others to suggestions and analysis at /Workshop

Involved parties

 * User:OldRight/User:Old Right
 * User:Neutrality
 * User:Conradrock
 * User:SimonP

Statement by User:Neutrality
I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with Old Right/OldRight. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at User:Neutrality/workshop II. Neutralitytalk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Conradrock
I have dealt with User:OldRight, on one occasion, after the RFC started for the Joe Scarborough article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that User:OldRight needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. Conradrock 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:SimonP
Any hearing should also look into User:Crevaner, an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - SimonP 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Wikipedia. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- OldRight 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - SimonP 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response
I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on Neutrality's talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe Conradrock is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- OldRight 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

 * Recuse. Neutralitytalk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Ambi 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ; could this be a sockpuppet? I'm thinking mostly of Libertas/Ollieplatt of whom OldRight's userpage seems strikingly similar . -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Accept &#10149;the Epopt 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

NPOV
1) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy contemplates inclusion of all significant information and viewpoints regarding a topic Neutral point of view.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
2. It is inappropriate to remove relevant well-sourced information from an article, especially to advance a point of view.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument and original research
3) Argument, however perceptive, cannot substitute for research in reputable references, see Original research.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User names and locus of conflicts
1) or  edits to Wikipedia articles which concern areas of political or social conflict are the locus of this dispute. Complaints include removal of information in order to advance conservative POV goals as well as addition of material for the same purpose.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of information
2) or  has removed sourced information from articles Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Argumentative POV editing
3) or  engages in argumentative POV editing Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Old Right placed on Probation
1) and  are placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Old Right from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Old Right must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)