Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority yay vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yay or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Yay:
Nay:
Abstain:


Proposed principles

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to be courteous and respectful towards other editors, especially those they may have a dispute with, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette which specifially admonishes editors to "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution, it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:47, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - although this does not mean that users should always be forced to negotiate. As I have said in previous cases, this would be an open invitation to crackpots and POV pushers.
Nay:
Abstain:


3) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


4) Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (pref. with italicised addition, also without)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I support both, but recognize the wisdom in Martin's addition.)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

6) Sysop powers must not be used to win a dispute about content.

Aye:
  1. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Amen.)
  4. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Characterization of Lance6wins' viewpoint

[edit]

1) Lance6wins in his edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes.

Yay:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 19:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Significance of Lance6wins' viewpoint

[edit]

2) The perspective which Lance6wins takes in his edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represent a significant, though minority, viewpoint which should be included in the articles provided it is adequately identified and proportionate.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (pref. with italicised addition)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I like the addition fine, also.)
  4. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. "Significant"? Not so sure. James F. (talk) 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. This is a content question and thus outside of our jurisdiction. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Mav

Uncertainly regarding the ability of Lance6wins to adequately attribute his viewpoints

[edit]

3) It is uncertain whether Lance6wins is able to conform in his edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the requirement that viewpoints presented be adequately attributed, see [1]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. He is unable or unwilling to deal with this adequately. Fred Bauder 15:09, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Fred
Abstain:
  1. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) Not needed, and I can't read minds. :-/
  2. Jwrosenzweig 19:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I can't read minds either. I would agree that he hasn't yet conformed, but I don't know if that needs explicit mention.)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User Zero0000 theatened and blocked Lance6wins

[edit]

4) User Zero0000, frustrated by the inaction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to the editing of user Lance6wins while engaged in an editing dispute with Lance6wins improperly threatened him and blocked him.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 19:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. (we have some fault here) mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Inablility of Lance6wins to follow the requirements of NPOV with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

[edit]

5) User:Lance6wins is unable to conform his editing to the requirements of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy with respect to articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, see [2] and the page history and talk page of Refusal to serve in the Israeli military. Note especially the repeated insertion of the header, "Resulting increase in suicide bombing".

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:09, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 18:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

[edit]

1) User Zero00 is suspended as a Wikipedia administrator for one week

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (prefer this to 1.5)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Or the below)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't think these consequences are stern enough....I will consider an alternative and post it soon, or else modify my vote. Moving from abstain to Nay because of my preference for 1.5.
  2. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. (a warning is needed) mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Mav
Abstain:

1.5) User Zero000 will have administrator privileges suspended for two weeks. Following that time, Zero000 will be on probation for a period of two months: during that time, if Zero000 takes any action which a majority of the active arbitrators consider an abuse of admin privileges, Zero000 will be desysopped. If Zero000 is desysopped as a result of this case, the Arbitration Committee reserves to itself the right to impose a time period during which Zero000 will be ineligible for renomination for adminship, if it is deemed necessary.

Aye:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 21:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (How's this? Too harsh? If so, can we find a middle ground between this and 1?)
  2. Fred Bauder 11:50, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 18:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (However, I prefer 1.0)
Nay:
  1. (a warning is needed along with probation; Zero seems to have good intentions and mis-understood the blocking policy) mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Mav


Abstain:


2) Edits by user Lance6wins of articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shall in some appropriate way identify the perspective taken either by explicitly stating it in understandable terms or by citing the source of the opinion or information in such a way that the perspective is identifiable.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I think this is too vague to be workable.
  2. Remedy is inadequate to deal with the problem of POV editing Lance6wins presents. Fred Bauder 15:14, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't think the complaint against Lance is that he doesn't source, but rather that he allegedly uses extremely biased sources. I don't know if this addresses that issue, nor do I know if the issue can be effectively addressed by the AC.


3) Lance6wins is forbidden from editing Wikipedia using sources that are biased in favour of the viewpoints he has historically promoted on Wikipedia, which might be characterised as "pro-settler" and "Israeli right wing". This includes the pirate radio station INN/"Arutz Sheva". Other Wikipedians are encouraged to be cautious against over-reliance on such sources.

Aye:
  1. Martin 15:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. That perspective is significant knowledge. He is one of the editors familiar with it. Fred Bauder 17:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

3.5) Lance6wins is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I prefer this to 3 simply because I think we go too far in characterizing the source evidence in 3. There are many legitimate uses to which even extremely biased sources can be put. Lance's problem isn't purely with sources, but with an inability to see beyond his sources' biases, or at least an inability to write as though he can.
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 18:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement

[edit]

1) In the event Lance6wins is unable or unwilling to conform to the requirement that his edits of articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shall in some appropriate way identify the perspective taken either by explicitly stating it in understandable terms or by citing the source of the opinion or information in such a way that the perspective is identifiable, upon motion by any user to the Arbitration Committee and presentation of proof of such failure Lance6wins shall be restricted from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a term to be decided at that point.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 15:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) prefer more general, below
  2. I prefer an outright ban from these articles. Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Prefer more general solution. James F. (talk) 12:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


2) In the event Lance6wins is unable or unwilling to conform to the requirements in the arbitration rulings above, upon motion by any user to the Arbitration Committee and presentation of proof of such failure Lance6wins shall be restricted from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a term to be decided at that point.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Again, an outright ban is preferred, see below. Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 18:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:


3. Any edit by Lance6wins to any article related to the Palestinian-Israeli confict may be reverted by any editor.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 18:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4. Any Wikipedia administrator may ban Lance6wins from Wikipedia for a short period (a day or up to a week for repeat offenses) if it is discovered that he has edited articles which relate to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 06:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 18:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

[edit]

I've never written principles or findings, so I'm hesitant to do so. Having reviewed the evidence, I would like to propose a long-term restriction on editing Palestine-related articles for L6W, who has shown, in my opinion, pronounced and consistent bias in his edits to numerous articles, in violation of NPOV, and who has violated the 3 revert rule numerous times, unless I miscount. I would also like to propose desysopping for Zero -- perhaps probationally (with an opportunity to apply directly to the AC for reinstatement after x months) [see talk for explanation of strikethrough] or perhaps "permanently" (meaning, until the community resysops....perhaps we should place a time limit on how long it should be before it's proposed at RFA, or else someone will simply immediately nominate) -- in light of his open disregard for blocking policy by blocking someone over a content dispute in which he was integrally involved. Probation would be another response (a period of time in which any further abuse of powers would receive a desysopping), but I am worried that it is too weak a response to an action taken consciously in violation of policy. Frustration is understandable, but someone who can't keep from abusing their abilities as an admin because of frustration should take some time away from being one. Zero said he didn't care about the consequences for himself -- he had to "protect" Wikipedia. All right, then. He should not complain about being desysopped when he knew going in that he was violating policy. That's my thoughts. Again, I'm hesitant to propose them above simply because we are very careful about wording, and I don't want to get us started on the wrong foot. Can someone help me sort out how I can post this? Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My take on it right now is that lance6wins edits from what can be generally termed a partisan viewpoint. It is difficult to adequately characterize his viewpoint in simple terms, for example I don't think he is a settler, although he may be. Lance6win's perspective is similar to that of Daniel Pipes, a relatively well known commentator. I think that perspective is significant and ought to be included in articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but ought to be identified either by reference to the perspective taken or the source of the material, in the case of the radio station, actually the web site (Lance6wins says the radio is shut down), its perspective is well known to Israelis but can be difficult to characterize to those unfamiliar with such nuances. At any rate identifying the perspective of material added to an article is the responsibility of the person who adds it. Simply taking that perspective and inserting it into the article as the truth is not acceptable; it needs to be attributed in some way which identifies it. Fred Bauder 11:05, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close

[edit]
  1. Let's move on. It's way past time. --mav 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 07:05, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 14:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 02:53, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins/Proposed_decision&oldid=431107246"