Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 6 are inactive or away, 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:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
1) Biographies of living persons requires that controversial material regarding living persons have a reliable source.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material
2) Biographies_of_living_persons provides that editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural  interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reliable sources for biographical material
3) Biographies_of_living_persons requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral point of view
4) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Essays are not policy
5) Essays, such as Criticism, are not policy but primarily opinion pieces, Category:Wikipedia essays. They may, however, as in the case of Wikipedia:Criticism where there has been substantial diverse input by the community, provide some guidance, see, for example Criticism.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Self-published source
6) Verifiability, a policy, requires that, with the exception of established researchers, self-published material is not acceptable as a reliable source.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Original research
7) No original research prohibits inclusion of material which has not been published by a reliable source.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Quotation of material from an unreliable source
8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General applicability of fundamental principles
9) The principles which underlie Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Reliable sources continue to rule editing of articles follow the death of a subject. A sober balanced treatment remains the rule as does the requirement that controversial information have a reliable source. Likewise, the same principles apply to on-going institutions the deceased was affiliated with.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Guilt by association
10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 23:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 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:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is the editing conflict between and  regarding a fundamentalist Christian minister Jack Hyles, his church  First Baptist Church of Hammond, his bible college Hyles-Anderson College, a television special concerning him Preying from the Pulpit, and possibly other related articles. The controversy relates to a wide variety of controversial negative allegations.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Jack Hyles is dead
2) Jack Hyles died in 2001.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Don't need a FoF for this. Neutralitytalk


 * Abstain:
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of policy by Arbustoo
3) Arbustoo has insisted on an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy supported by no more than an essay . That edit led to an exchange of mutual recrimination between Arbustoo and Vivaldi at Talk:Preying_from_the_Pulpit.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Self published books
4) There are two self published books by critics of Jack Hyles which have been the subject of dispute: see Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2 and Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2 and the discussion at Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence and Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence.
 * Voyle A. Glover. Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case, Brevia Publishing Company (1990), trade paperback, ISBN 09628-5318-6
 * Victor Nischik, The wizard of god : my life with Jack Hyles, Sychar Publishing Company (1990), OCLC 24730334


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Poorly sourced controversial material
5) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College contain large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, typically material consisting of allegations, quotations and second-hand reports, see Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop, Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop, Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop, and Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 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:

Article probation
1) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Vivaldi and Arbustoo
2) As much of the material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo was material which has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source they are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General
I think the major problem here is Fact laundering. I know Vivaldi and Arbustoo have been rude and edit warred but that was in the context of a major misunderstanding of what might properly be included in the article. Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 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.''

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.


 * move to close ➥the Epopt 17:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything that will pass has passed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 16:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)