Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies please place proposed items you have confidence in on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Proposed decision

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Joe Scarborough

• 20:36, Jun 7, 2005: Old Right removes the same paragraph. He marks the edit as minor and does not give an edit summary. [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The paragraph removed is a report of something which did not happen. I see no problem with removing slanderous material, however safe it may be legaly to republish it. See extended discussion at Talk:Joe Scarborough. Fred Bauder 01:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

   However marking such an edit as minor and not adding an edit summary is misleading. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 18:58, Jun 1, 2005: Old Right removes the same paragraph. He gives the edit summary "case if irrelevent (sic) & including it is POV propaganda!." [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removal of slanderous material is appropriate as is comment. See extended discussion at Talk:Joe Scarborough. Fred Bauder 01:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 22:48, May 25, 2005: Old Right repeats his edit below (which was removed soon after he first edited it) and also removes an entire paragraph with the edit summary "removed irrelevent info." [3]
• 01:25, May 18, 2005: Old Right adds "a political moderate" to Joe Scarborough, which is nonsensical. [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again removal of slanderous material which consists of media reports that the subject was not involved with is appropriate, as is the comment that he removed irrelevant material. See extended discussion at Talk:Joe Scarborough. The characterization of Scarborough as "moderate is unsourced, but not obviously "nonsensical." Fred Bauder 01:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Passion of the Christ

• 21:29, Jun 5, 2005: Old Right edits The Passion of the Christ, removing from the "Controversy and Anti-Semitism" section "the film has also been criticized by several fundamentalist Protestant groups for its Catholic and Ecumenist overtones" and leaving the edit summary "rv nonsense propaganda." Later the text is restored. [5][6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Edit involves removal of sourced information along with its source [7] which was properly reverted. Fred Bauder 01:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
2. Note however that Old Right didn't edit war over this. He accepted the reverting of his deletion of material. I think this is an example of an editor being bold Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rock Against Bush

• 11:40, Jun 11, 2005: Old Right reverts. He is soon reverted. [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The material Old Right restored seems unobjectionable [9]. Radicalsubversiv's comment seems discourteous [10]. Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree that the material isn't objectional in terms of POV. That doesn't mean it should necessarily be in the article though. RS was talking about the material, not an editor. Doesn't seem particulaly discoutreus to me. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 07:57, Jun 6, 2005: More than two days later, Old Right returns to the article to pursue trivial disputes, changing "the election" to "re-election." He is later reverted. [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Why would anyone bother to revert this trivial, but accurate edit? Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
   1. I don't know but note that Old Right reverts them with the edit summary revert vandalism so daft behaviour on both sides. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 10:04, Jun 4, 2005: Radicalsubversiv, leaving the edit summary "Rhobite's correct, this is completely silly," restores Rhobite's version. [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again this removal of information seems to be without any basis with Radicalsubversiv repeating his discourtesy. Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 16:26, Jun 4, 2005: Old Right, leaving the edit summary "Yes it is needed; to show the level of RAB's failure!" reverts Rhobite's simple, neutral version and restores his own. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy there is expression of an alternative viewpoint. Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 14:28, Jun 4, 2005: Rhobite, leaving the edit summary "no need for this," edits the paragraph to "The project was not successful, as President George W. Bush went on to win the election." [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The link is to a different edit, but again Old Right's information is appropriate under Wikipedia's NPOV policy which provides for inclusion of significant alternative viewpoints. Again there is discourtesy, this time by Rhobite, if the quote is accurate. Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 20:58, Jun 3, 2005: Old Right edits Rock Against Bush, changing "the project was not successful, though the President George W. Bush only won by a slim majority in an extremely close election" to " The project was not successful, as President George W. Bush went on to win the election by a majority and received the most votes for any candidate in American history." He marks the edit as minor and does not leave an edit summary. [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit is somewhat inaccurate as we all know. As this is the language Old Right uses in the examples above this sheds a new light on the repeated restorations of this somewhat inaccurate characterization of the out come of the election. Fred Bauder 02:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stephen Baldwin

• 21:04, Jun 3, 2005: Old Right repeats the edit, again leaving no edit summary. [16][17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit, unsourced, characterizing brother Alec as "[[far left|ultraliberal]]" contrasts sharply with Alec Baldwin which characterizes Alec as a "Liberal Democrat." The reversion and comment seem appropriate if somewhat discourteous [18] Fred Bauder 02:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 04:06, May 14, 2005: Old Right edits Stephen Baldwin, adding "in contrast to his ultraliberal brother Alec," again leaving no edit summary. Soon afterward someone NPOVs the text. [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. A repetition of the same error. The succeeding edit does not NPOV the text, after all the brothers do seem in sharp contrast, just removes the inaccurate information [20]. Fred Bauder 02:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Katherine Harris

• 19:00, May 26, 2005: Old Right edits Katherine Harris, removing an entire section on Harris's views of embryonic stem cell research with the edit summary "irrelevent" (sic). [21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Although not sourced explicitly Old Right here removes relevant information (the voting record of a congresswoman regarding significant public issues is by definition relevant) and characterizes it as "irrelevant." Fred Bauder 02:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bill Maher

• 23:51, May 25, 2005: Old Right adds Category:Socialism to Bill Maher. Maher has never identified himself as a socialist and is generally identified as libertarian. No edit summary is given. [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Consulting Bill Maher gives no basis for insertion of this category, Old Right cites no other source. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. • 02:11, May 5, 2005: Old Right makes assorted POV additions and removals from Bill Maher. [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, and engages in inappropriate argumentation. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 16:47, Feb 23, 2005: Old Right changes "he also publically supports PETA, an organization that works for animal rights" into "He also publically supports PETA, an extremist animal rights organization that is often accused of terrorist methods." [24]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An inappropriate edit in the context of this article which is about Bill Maher, not PETA. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 00:00, Feb 13, 2005: Old Right reverts. [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Some problems here, For example he changes from language which attributes a point of view to some critics to baldly stating it as fact, "his liberal views." Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 04:55, Feb 9, 2005: Old Right makes assorted POV edits to Bill Maher. He does not leave an edit summary and is soon reverted. [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, continuation of above problems, argumentation in the body of the article and bald characterizations. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 20:55, Feb 5, 2005: Old Right edits the sentence "He supported Bob Dole in the 1996 U.S. presidential election and is close friends with conservative pundit Ann Coulter," removing the second part and leaving the edit summary "who his friends are is irrelevent to his politics!" [27]
• 20:53, Feb 5, 2005: Old Right makes assorted POV edits to Bill Maher. He does not leave an edit summary and is soon reverted. [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removes significant information and characterizes it as "irrelevant." Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 21:57, Oct 4, 2004: In a paragraph on Maher's views, Old Right changes "aggressive gun control" to "near-absolute gun control." [29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Unsourced POV edit. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 13:15, Sep 8, 2004: Old Right removes, without explanation, the sentence "Maher has been an outspoken advocate of several political positions, but no notable overall ideology." He leaves no edit summary. [30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Although unsourced, the removed information seems appropriate. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 13:15, Sep 8, 2004: Old Right makes an obviously POV edit to Bill Maher. [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Incorporates argumentation and is unsourced. Fred Bauder 02:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: