This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPOV[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiable information[edit]

2) Only information which is verifiable by reference to a reputable source may be included in an article. Likewise, removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper. See Wikipedia:Verifiability

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ownership of articles[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles discourages assertions of ownership or control over articles a user has an interest in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability, not truth[edit]

4) Wikipedia is a compilation of verifiable information, not an assertion of truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No original research[edit]

5) Original work or conclusions are not acceptable for inclusion in articles, Wikipedia:No original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of the POV tag[edit]

6) Template:POV is properly used in support of NPOV. Use of the tag by a user who is attempting to impose a point of view on an article or suppress an opposing point of view is improper. Such improper use renders Category:NPOV disputes less useful as includes articles within it regarding which there is not an authentic NPOV dispute, but an assault on NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a Template:BogusPOV. Fred Bauder 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets[edit]

7) in instances where two or more users are exhibiting substantially the same behavior they may be treated as one user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith[edit]

8) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that users in their interactions with other users proceed on the basis that that other editors are trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Aggressive point of view editing by 8bitJake[edit]

1) 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited aggressively with respect to articles regarding American political figures [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. His aggressive initiatives were opposed by FRCP11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who generally engaged in reasoned argument [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also contested 8bitJake's point of view editing in a reasoned manner, referring 8bitJake to relevant policies [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. In June, 2006 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf, apparent sockpuppets of 8bitJake appeared [29], [30], [31], and bogus FAC template. Examples are from Talk:Henry M. Jackson where 8bitJake contests any mention of Jackson as a forerunner and inspiration of the neocons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The IP is probably a sock of Bazzajf (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf), but Bazzajf and 8bitJake are almost definitely not the same person. -- Jonel | Speak 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser establishes the ip. Please explain the Irish address. Fred Bauder 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser establishes which IP? Bazzajf and the IP, or Jake and the IP? I'm reasonably sure there's meatpuppetry, perhaps due to a shared interest at Jeb Bush, but that's more speculation than I'm willing to partake in, and I don't know of the IP being a proxy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajf and the IP Fred Bauder 03:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8bitJake violations of 3RR[edit]

2) 8bitJake has been blocked briefly several time for violations of the three revert rule [32].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, not that many... Fred Bauder 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It's worth noting that there are a number of violations that were not reported, as well as the ones that he was blocked for, as noted in the evidence section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by 8bitJake[edit]

3) 8bitJake has been discourteous to other users [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discourtesy by FRCP11[edit]

4) FRCP11 has been discourteous towards 8bitJake [38], [39], and [40].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misunderstanding of NPOV and misuse of POV tag[edit]

5) There is evidence that 8bitJake misunderstands Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as permitting removal of information which in his opinion is negative [41]. He also inserted Template:POV into an article when his objection was that a point of view he opposed was included in the article [42] [43] an outside comment. After extensive discussion the tag was removed; 8bitJake reinserted it [44]. Another outside view

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8bitJake has asserted ownership and control over an article[edit]

6) 8bitJake has asserted control over Henry M. Jackson [45] and violated the consensus of other editors of the article [46].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8bitJake has asserted the primacy of "truth"[edit]

7) 8bitJake has asserted that he has "truth on his side" [47].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research by 8bitJake[edit]

8) 8bitJake, using as an analogy "1 +1 = 2" has advanced original research as appropriate information for inclusion [48].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Bazzajf[edit]

9) Bazzajf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (62.77.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet of 8bitJake, has engaged in personal attacks [49].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intense interest by someone "Irish" in Scoop Jackson is a bit unusual. Fred Bauder 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Bazzajf and the IP both operate from the same area of Ireland, and are admitted sockpuppets. 8BJ is almost certainly from Washington State, via off-wiki evidence but no clear on-wiki that I'm aware of, so the chances of them being sockpuppets is low. Meatpuppetry is certainly a possibility, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On-wiki point toward Washington as well. [50][51] There are a few others I've seen where 8bit has made reference to his involvement in Young Democrats, which is definitely not a Irish society, and meeting various Washington politicians. --Bobblehead 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Valid criticisms?[edit]

10) Possibly valid criticism [52] with response. Another [53] [54] and response.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just a note Fred Bauder 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith[edit]

11) 8bitJake has failed to assume good faith on the part of other users. This is seen at Talk:Henry M. Jackson where he repeatedly accuses other editors of improper motives.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8bitJake banned from article which relate to Washington politics[edit]

1) 8bitJake is banned from articles which relate to Washington politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8bitJake placed on probation[edit]

2) 8bitJake is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16[edit]

3) The remedies applied to 8bitJake also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Violation of bans imposed by this decision may be sanctioned by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: