Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/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, 3 Arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 4 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]

Copies of texts[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources discourages extensive quotations of text of any document. Such material may be placed at Wikisource and linked to.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Respect for community decision making[edit]

2) Users are expected to respect decision making by the community, see Wikipedia:Consensus.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture[edit]

3) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is not an inclusive list of the vast number of ways non-encyclopedic material may find its way into Wikipedia. From time to time innovative ways to include non-enclyclopedic material are anticipated. Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture. Such material, if it belongs in any MediaWiki Project, belongs in WikiBooks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Agree with Sam. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. absolutely not ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Sam. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Well, it is indeed not a commentary on scripture. But it is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias can have articles on scripture. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand upon this: articles will often read like commentaries on scripture because their sources are commentaries on scripture. That is to be expected. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) Commentary on scripture, where "scripture" includes but is not limited to the Christian Bible, the Torah and Talmud, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, and other sacred writings, is a desired and required part of any general encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include commentary on scripture.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Also a content decision. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. content decision. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

3.1) Commentary on scripture, where "scripture" includes but is not limited to the Christian Bible, the Torah and Talmud, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, and other sacred writings, is a desired and required part of any general encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include material about commentary on scripture.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. content decision, again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Unclear what this means. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Non-encyclopedic material may be removed[edit]

4) Non-encyclopedic material may be removed from Wikipedia once its nature is clearly established.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. true but irrelevant to this case ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As per Sam. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. True, but per my comments above irrelevant. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True, but not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) SimonP has created and vigorously defended a series of articles based on the Canonical Gospels such as Matthew 1:5 and Matthew 1:9. These articles have been the subject of repeated Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and commentary, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Issues include inclusion of the entire text of chapters, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text and Wikipedia:Bible verses/Survey; use of the King James (Authorised) Version only, and creation of articles regarding single verses, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus of the community[edit]

2) The consensus of the community, as expressed in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is that "that, taking into consideration Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, the vast majority of these articles should be merged (if any content proves relevant) and otherwise redirected to its parent chapter article, unless it can prove outstanding noteability on its own. A simple discussion of a verse does not make for an acceptable article, original research or not." There is also consensus on not including the complete text of any particular translation of the Bible, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This consensus is certainly not clear, per the individual AfDs. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that that's more a reflection on AfD's unsuitability for policy creation. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. if it were clear, which it is not, we wouldn't be considering this case ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There's clearly no consensus; whether or not this would be a good idea is a different issue. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above, no clear consensus. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Validity of consensus[edit]

3) The discussions regarding the matters at issue are recent and were participated in by a substantial number of interested users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. no, they were not "participated in by a substantial number of interested users" ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Which discussions? I don't think there is any clear consensus shown, so this is irrelevant. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unsure. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP has ignored community consensus[edit]

4) SimonP's reaction to the expressed consensus of the community, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew was to ignore it. See the links following SimonP's statement at the top of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, defending the legitimacy of the consensus reached in that discussion. See also his statement at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence#Evidence presented by SimonP, "My contention is that despite outward appearances, they do not reflect community consensus and can be ignored".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not from SimonP's comments, but from the patent lack of consensus elsewhere. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. lack of consensus is indeed patent ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No clear consensus to ignore. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Articles to the verse level shall be merged[edit]

1) In accordance with community consensus, articles to the verse level, other than notable passages, shall be merged into more comprehensive articles dealing either with the subject matter of the scripture or its sections.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Content decision. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is, indeed, a content decision. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. whoa, Nelly ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ! Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Content decision. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Content decision. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Scriptural quotations[edit]

2) In accordance with community consensus, neither the entire text of chapters of books of the Bible nor quotations drawn exclusively from the Kings James Version shall be included in articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) On the same level as articles for each episode of South Park. Fred Bauder 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't so much a content decision as a policy decision. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) I have to say, on further thought, that although this could be used as a policy decision, as was the intent (as I saw it), people will abuse it as a content one, so I'm now oppossing. James F. (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that when multiple but divergent sources are available, it is a violation of NPOV to include only one of those sources — the solution to which is to include more sources, not to delete the single source ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Content decision. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Content decision. Let the editors of these articles make this call. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My opinion is unchanged — I agree that when multiple but divergent sources are available, it is a violation of NPOV to include only one of those sources — the solution to which is to include more sources, not to delete the single source — but since this remedy is being interpreted as prohibiting quotations from one of the most influential documents in history, I'm changing my vote ➥the Epopt 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree much along the lines as the Epopt. James F. (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing vote for same reasons as Epopt. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

SimonP banned[edit]

3) SimonP is banned from creating or editing articles which deal with individual bible verses or inserting the entire text of chapters of the King James Version into articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This does not seem necessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unnecessary. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

SimonP cautioned[edit]

4) SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. and not to put WP:BEANS up any bodily orifice, where "orifice" is to be interpreted broadly ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Obviously a good principle, but it isn't necessary to reprimand SimonP on the basis of the evidence presented. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should SimonP violate the ban imposed he may be blocked for a brief period, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Should he unblock himself he shall be desyopped briefly, in the case of repeat offenses, he may be desyopped indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Waaaaay too much for what has not been demonstrated to be true. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given that I'm against his being banned from such articles in the first place... James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't support the relevant remedy anyhow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

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.

  • Principles passed: 1 and 2 (Copies of texts, Respect for community decision making).
  • Findings of fact passed: 1 (Locus of the dispute).
  • Remedies passed: 4 (SimonP cautioned).
  • No enforcement required.

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. It looks like whatever has passed will pass, and 4 votes is enough in this case. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not massively wild about Remedy 2, but I suppose that it will do. James F. (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose closing until someone gives me a good answer as to why Remedy 2 isn't a content decision. 2 is no longer passing, so close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734002"