Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/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 they 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]

Ban for disruption[edit]

1) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though I really don't like the overusage of "tendentious". Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Ed Poor has engaged in tendentious editing[edit]

1) Ed Poor has in the name of NPOV engaged in tendentious editing: examples from Acid precipitation: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], see http://www.al.noaa.gov/AQRS/reports/napapreport05.pdf for what the source actually says, [8]; example from Three Years of Natural Disasters [9]. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence#POV_Pushing_and_Refusal_to_follow_WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence#Tendentious_editing, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Kenosis, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_ScienceApologist.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The problem is not his point of view but his mode of expressing it. See below. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Dom. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Disruptive behavior[edit]

2) The creation of the now-deleted Wikipedia:Mass revert, was intentional disruption to make a point ("If this is deleted, will SA, FM, et al., admit that they have no right to act as if this were a real policy? If this is kept, then I'll stop objecting to their actions, because it will be policy.").

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Just normal Ed Poor stuff. Fred Bauder 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oxymoron city. For better or worse, Ed has been an egregious user here. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Creation of POV forks[edit]

3) Ed Poor has created several new articles which were deleted for being POV forks intended to evade consensus already reached on established articles. These include Evolution is a fact, Good scientific practice, Criticism of intelligent design. He has also created several new scientist articles with selective emphasis, such that they serve only as POV forks as well. See evidence.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ed Poor's editing technique is problematic[edit]

4) Ed Poor's editing technique is frequently ineffective and problematic. He has made many controversial edits without regard for prior agreement on the matter (failing the "don't be reckless" clause of Be Bold), and repeated the disputed edits despite consensus against them. (evidence) He has also, according both to an expert in the field (here) and to his own admissions (here) edited extensively to topics with which he is not familiar. Despite these problems being raised in the Request for Comment about him, Ed Poor's approach remains unmodified.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. The problem isn't that he makes mistakes or does things wrong - it's that he does so again and again, the same way, despite it being explained. Little has changed over time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tendentious editing in different words Fred Bauder 18:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 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.

Ed Poor placed on Probation[edit]

1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer second version. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer the modified version. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This might be acceptable to me but Dmcdevit's proposed version below is much better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer modified version. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified[edit]

1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dislike the "tendentious" version. Also, adding "or set of articles" for prevention of creating new' POV forks. Dmcdevit·t 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this one better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Removed "edits against consensus". Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 02:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 11:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:

:#I will never support a remedy which forbids "edits against consensus" Fred Bauder 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:
  1. Suggest the phrase about consensus simply be dropped here; the rest should suffice, and Fred has a point in principle. Charles Matthews 08:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Ed Poor violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
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.

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. Nuff, move we close Fred Bauder 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 11:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037710635"