Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/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 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 5 are inactive, so 5 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]

Remedies for disruptive editing patterns[edit]

1) An otherwise productive editor who edits some articles in an aggressively tendentious way may be banned from editing those articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Autobiography[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, discourages persons who have an article about themselves in Wikipedia from editing it, suggesting that they provide input on the talk page, but points out the need for citing published sources for information to be acceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mercy[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial experts[edit]

4) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of controversial experts[edit]

5) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them or on their editing activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Focusing attention on controversial users[edit]

6) Wikipedia editors who engage in inappropriately focusing their attention on controversial users should be extended some degree of understanding as this is a predictable newbie error.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

POV editing by Rangerdude[edit]

1) Rangerdude has from time to time engaged in editing which can be fairly characterized as aggressive and tendentious (POV) editing of articles which relate to Houston area politics and media, and the politics of the American South. This pattern of editing is widespread and has drawn the attention of the Wikipedia administrators Slimvirgin and Willmcw, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_user:Willmcw_on_user:Rangerdude and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Evidence_by_Katefan0.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Error by Willmcw[edit]

2) Willmcw has in at least one instance been caught up in the struggle over the content of political articles and edited inappropriately, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#David_Duke.2FLudwig_von_Mises_Institute

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of Cberlet[edit]

3) Rangerdude has inappropriately quarreled with and been involved in disputes regarding the articles concerning a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Cberlet, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Rangerdude Added 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] Fred Bauder 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of Nskinsella[edit]

3) Willmcw has inappropriately quarreled with, and been involved in disputes regarding the articles concerning, a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Nskinsella, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Evidence_from_Nskinsella.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks by Nskinsella[edit]

5) Nskinsella has made personal attacks on Willmcw [5]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet[edit]

6) Cberlet, a minor public figure, has involved himself inappropriately in the content of the article on himself [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) A comment on a talk page is not "inappropriate involvement", and the very serious accusations being made against him in the article were extremely provocative.[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) I don't think this is inappropriate involvement.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (would prefer to see "sometimes" removed)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) (Moved to abstain.)[reply]

Over-involvement by Nskinsella in Stephan Kinsella[edit]

7) Nskinsella, a minor public figure, has involved himself inappropriately in the content of the article on himself Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Evidence_from_Nskinsella.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (But I would agree with Kelly's proposed change, too.)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (would prefer to see "sometimes" removed)[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.

Rangerdude placed on probation[edit]

1) Rangerdude is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. Any administrator may ban Rangerdude from editing any article which he disrupts by aggressive tendentious editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Rangerdude placed on Probation[edit]

1.1) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Rangerdude with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Rangerdude's probation shall automatically end.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Willmcw banned for one day[edit]

2) Willmcw is banned for one day as the result of the egregious violation committed while editing Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC) I've come around to supporting "example bans" like this.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC) A punitive measure which would serve no purpose, as the action was extremely uncharacteristic, and Willmcw has already expressed regret for it.[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (Not sure. Smacks too much of punishment rather than preventative.)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Per James. I'm not yet convinced either way on these.[reply]

Rangerdude admonished[edit]

3) Rangerdude is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Willmcw admonished[edit]

4) Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Nskinsella cautioned regarding personal attacks[edit]

5) Nskinsella is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography[edit]

6) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Nskinsella cautioned regarding autobiography[edit]

7) Nskinsella is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Rangerdude edit any article he is banned from under the terms of his probation he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[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 appears that everything that is going to pass has passed. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After voting on new proposed remedy Fred Bauder 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As with Fred. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733597"