Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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 she/he 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 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Biographies of living persons[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism provides "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. [1]" (This specific language is in Template:Blp). Removal of poorly sourced negative information about a living person is an exception to the 3RR rule, Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiability[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Verifiability is a fundamental policy. Only information which has been published in a reliable source may be included in an article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I fail to see why we should compromise.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Verifiability is a fundamental policy, but there is leeway regarding sources if they are used in articles about themselves, and couched in appropriate WP:NPOV language. Prefer 3.1[reply]
  2. Yes, too stark. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Verifiability[edit]

3.1) Wikipedia:Verifiability is a fundamental policy. When including negative information about living people one must be particularly careful that the information comes from reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Better to be specific here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Allegations[edit]

4) Determining the point at which widespread allegations of an unproven offense become so significant in themselves that information about them are properly included in an article is a matter of editorial judgement. On the one hand, the fact of widespread rumors or allegations may be verifiable, on the other hand, mere allegations ought not stand in for confirmation of an offense.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Accessibility of a reference[edit]

5) Using references as a source which are difficult to access is problematic. Both readers and other editors should be able to check the sources of Wikipedia information.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is an issue, but we need better wording. Not sure what yet. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a very dangerous, slippery slope proposition. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Intentionally doing so is problematic. Doing so in and of itself is not. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) As with Charles.[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. We need to define difficult. Journal databases that require a paid login or obscure books that require a trip to one of only a handful of university libraries are unquestionably difficult to access, but they are also unquestionably valid references. - SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Simon. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Don't bite the newbies[edit]

6) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers requests forbearance toward users who make mistakes related to inexperience.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is Veselin Topalov, a biography of a living person. There are a number of specific issues but the prime one is inclusion of negative information regarding Veselin Topalov, see Talk:Veselin_Topalov#Cheating_allegations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Danielpi has been discourteous[edit]

2) Danielpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discourteous to Dionyseus [2]. This resulted in a warning by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3] which he deleted from his talk page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence#Ryan_Delaney. After Dionyseus made several newbie mistakes couldn't recognize a comma splice and though NPOV stood for negative point of view Danielpi expressed open contempt [4] and [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of inaccessible source[edit]

3) Danielpi has used a source, which while not obscure, is nevertheless inaccessible to other readers and editors [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is inaccessible to most readers, but newspaper archives are an incredibly useful source that are used on thousands of articles. We in no way should imply that they are not perfectly valid sources. - SimonP 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is not an issue. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As per Simon. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Other forums[edit]

4) The disputed information has been considered and published by professional journalists [7].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Death threats[edit]

5) There is no evidence by checkuser or otherwise which offers credible evidence that the threatening email received by Dionyseus came from Danielpi.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Danielpi banned for personal attacks[edit]

1) Danielpi is banned for one week for discourtesy and personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing recommendation[edit]

2) It is recommended that Veselin Topalov be edited in accord with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Special attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism and Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material making removal of poorly sourced negative information from the biography of a living person an exception to the three revert rule (3RR).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Recommendations to Dionyseus[edit]

3) It is recommended to Dionyseus that he consider carefully the suggestions of others regarding punctuation and other matters he is not familiar with. It is no use arguing about well established punctuation conventions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. What does this apply to? We have a one time one week ban, and two recommendations which are important but are also far from edicts. - SimonP 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No-one's behaviour warrants this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Tweak this. Charles Matthews 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. James F. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) This doesn't apply to anything, as we don't impose anything of this sort (yet?).[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

  • Majority is 6.
  • Principles: 1, 2, 4 and 6 pass 8-0. 3.1 passes 7-0. 3 and 5 fail.
  • Findings: 1, 2, 4 and 5 pass 8-0. 3 fails.
  • Remedies: all pass 7-0.
  • Enforcement: fails.

Vote[edit]

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.

  1. Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. SimonP 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dionyseus/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734297"