This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Checkuser

Checkuser 1

1) Request for checkuser investigation WP:RCU of User:TedMundy. To see if the ip's used for that account correspond to any of the ip's used for the User:Cberlet or User:LucVerhelst accounts. User:TedMundy has made only a marginal number of edits, albeit some quite interesting ones, in light of the actions of the latter two users. Intangible 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:TedMundy only performed 8 edits, one to Front National and one to National Front, both uncontroversial, one to Front National (France), where he tried to find a middle ground, and five to Vlaams Belang. I don't see how the three former would be helping Intangible's case, so I assume he is referring to the Vlaams Belang edits as being "quite interesting". Since I don't believe User:Cberlet ever contributed to Vlaams Belang, I assume Intangible is fishing to find a connection between me and TedMundy.

For which goal ? To prove that the other boys have been bad, too ?

Anyway, if we're on a sockpuppet fishing trip, I'd like to add to the request, to investigate on sockpuppetry between User:Intangible, User:1652186 (who, since his last attack on me, has left the building), User:TheIndividualist (whose pattern of edits, when compared to User:Intangible's is quite interesting), and User:Jvb (whose style of editing is remarkably like Intangible's, and who suddenly disappeared not long after the appearance of Intangible at the Vlaams Belang article). -- LucVerhelst 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Do I understand this as a suggestion that User:Cberlet is secretly using a sockpuppet? I can hardly think of a more unlikely accusation. Whatever on thinks of Cberlet's politics (I happen to agree with them, Intangible clearly does not), and regardless of the fact that he occasionally makes a mistake (as do we all), I'd be hard pressed to name a more honest and aboveboard participant in the Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I've been thinking about this, and I am a bit worried. My username is my real name, and as you can read on my user pages, I'm a local politician. We've got elections coming up in 2 months, so, in real life I am rather vulnerable.

At work (during my breaks), I'm editing from behind one IP that is being shared by the entire network, over 1,000 people. They all have the same PC configuration. On the Dutch Wikipedia (maybe also on the English Wikipedia), this IP has been used several times for vandalism, and has been blocked several times.

At home, I am also using a basic system, and I'm behind a variable IP belonging to a popular ISP.

The problem is, I'm a bit scared that, in view of the above, there is a chance of "false positives" when searching for sock puppets. So I would like to ask to be careful in publishing the results of the search, as they might damage me and the people I'm working with. Thanks.

To be clear: I am quite confident that the CheckUser research will be carried out correctly, objectively and with the necessary discretion. (Told you I'm a politician, didn't I?) :-) -- LucVerhelst 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

After some consultation, I would like to make clear that I personally do not agree with a CheckUser performed on my username. It would invade my privacy without a serious reason. -- LucVerhelst 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Checkuser 2

2) Request for checkuser investigation WP:RCU of the following ip's used for editing pages connected to this arbitration to detect potenitial sockpuppetry as per note by LucVerhelst above: User:Intangible, User:1652186, User:TheIndividualist, User:Jvb. -- Cberlet 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:TheIndividualist is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:RJII.-- LucVerhelst 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Uiofvnondc appears to be suspected/is accused of being a sockpuppet of Intangible. [1] and [2]-- LucVerhelst 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Propose temporary injunction against User:Intangible

1) Propose temporary injunction against User:Intangible against editing any more category pages, editing categories on entry pages, or seeking deletion or renaming of categories. In the past few days User:Intangible has carried out scores of such edits. See: here.-- Cberlet 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Detailed explanation

Politics: Categories, Cross-Referencing, and Taxonomy

If you think that the point of Wikipedia is to make neat category lists for editors to admire, then read no further. If, however, you think the point of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is to help readers find useful information, please read on.

On Wikipedia the Categories function as a rough cross-referencing system that supplements “See also,” inline links, etc. As someone who writes entries for print encyclopedias, I have been delighted in the way that categories work on Wikipedia.

For weeks, now, User:Intangible has been removing valuable and useful category information placed on a page by an editor seeking to guide readers to related information. User:Intangible has been removing hundreds of these category links as part of a massive scheme to create a categorization system that looks neat, is totally hierarchical, and removes what appear to be redundant categories.

Only they are not redundant. While cross-referencing in a print encyclopedia often involves the creation of a hierarchical taxonomy tree (the text equivalent of an algorithm), and while sometimes such category trees are published, they exist primarily as work tools for writers and editors to consult when adding cross-references to an entry.

So an entry might usefully have several cross-references from the same taxonomy branch, including categories higher and lower on that branch.

Here is a simple example of category deletion by User:Intangible from Fascism and Ideology:

[[Category:Fascism]]......................[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Political theories]]...........
[[Category:Economic ideologies]]..........
[[Category:Anti-communism]]...............

[3]

According to User:Intangible: “(they are redundant because, for example, :Category:Fascism is already a subcat of :Anti-communism. Sigh.)”

User:Intangible thus has the concept of cross-referencing for an encyclopedia upside down. Readers often follow categories up from the bottom of the branch. There are two problems with what User:Intangible did here.

1): Both [[Category:Fascism]] and [[Category:Anti-communism]] are useful categories for readers of this entry on Fascism and Ideology. The categories are not “redundant,” they are complementary.

2): A reader sent only to [[Category:Fascism]] is confronted with 10 subcategories and 42 page entries. Nowhere does [[Category:Anti-communism]] appear. How is the reader to figure out that [[Category:Anti-communism]] is relevant if the [[Category:Anti-communism]] has been deleted from the page entry? Is the reader supposed to have memorized the entire category taxonomy tree from Wikipedia? User:Intangible is designing a system that only makes sense for editors working from the top of the hierarchy down the tree, but this approach is useless for readers of page entries. Yes, [[Category:Fascism]] is a subcategory of [[Category:Anti-communism]], but a reader now has no way to know that is the case if he or she is starting on the page entry Fascism and Ideology.

User:Intangible is not deleting “redundant” categories, but deleting useful information that readers can use productively.

Sometimes User:Intangible appears to consolidate categories and describes it as “-redundant cats,” or “recat,” when far more is going on. Sometimes, User:Intangible is removing information in a way that reflects a biased POV. Here is an example from the entry on Corporatism:

[[Category:Fascism]]..................[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Globalization]]............
[[Category:Politics]].................
................................................[[Category:Political systems]]

[4]

Globalization is directly related to the entry on Corporatism, but it has vanished. In its place is [[Category:Political Systems]], which does not list Globalization as a subcategory. Here User:Intangible has not just recategorized, but deleted a useful cross-reference.

Here is an example from Fascism:

[[Category:Anti-communism]]....................
[[Category:Fascism]]...........................[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Politics of Italy]].................[[Category:Politics of Italy]]
[[Category:Political theories]]................
......................................................[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Political systems]].................[[Category:Political systems]]
[[Category:Nazi Germany]].................
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]................
[[Category:Economic ideologies]]..........[[Category:Economic ideologies]]
[[Category:Economic systems]].............[[Category:Economic systems]]

[5]

One can argue that the deletion of [[Category:Nazi Germany]] might make sense. The most glaring POV edit, however, is the removal of [[Category:Anti-Semitism]] from the entry on Fascism. Also note the removal of [[Category:Anti-communism]]. One of the core aspects of Fascism is its Anti-Communism, according to the entry itself.

If an editor went through the entries in a print encyclopedia removing all the cross-references that fell under a higher level taxonomic category heading, they would be fired as incompetent or sent for treatment for an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Why? Because the point of an encyclopedia is to help readers find useful information, not make neat lists that editors can admire for their sleek lack of “redundancy.”

If as an administrator you are pleased with a reconfiguration of the cross-referencing of the Politics section that will satisfy the handful of readers with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, then do nothing.

After all, for some people the point of a meal is the chance to line up the utensils. But for those of us who look at Wikipedia as an intellectual meal that provides sustenance, then as administrators you are allowing one fanatic to steal food off our plates.-- Cberlet 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a shear insinuation. Category:Politics was in disarray. I helped to diffuse articles into subcats, creating categories along the way, such as Category:Political activism, Category:Political media, Category:Political communication, Category:Political ideologies, Category:Political parties by issue, etc. Putting me on the WP:AN, or asking for a temporary injunction, is simply uncalled for. Sigh. Intangible 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Response: On the contrary, many of the recategorizations by Intangible remove specific categories and replace them with higher level categories, which is not useful and also tends to remove categorical identifying information from numerous articles. Here is an example: [6]. -- Cberlet 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Intangibles recats make good sense. Now to put a lot more articles into their new and good categories. Good work. The request for injunction does not even say what is wrong. Re-categorizing articles is not against any WP rule; creating and using useful categories should be encouraged. Thanks Hmains 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Response: Another editor, The Ungovernable, thinks that a third party should examine these recategorizations by User:Intangible. See: [7]. -- Cberlet 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cross-referencing forms the basics of Wikipedia categorization. The point is to increase the possibilities of finding the article, hence various categories for one article. Intangible should find consensus before engaging in such massive decategorizations. Tazmaniacs 23:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I do, see for example Category talk:Anarchism. You should be glad that at least some people are willing to clean up the mess in the category system. Don't tell me that the current subcats of Category:Politics prevent people from finding articles. That is just plain nonsense. Intangible 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Intangible has engaged in tendentious editing [8] [9], [10], and [11], and [12]. There are many more examples on the evidence page. Many of these involve squeamishness about using the ordinary English words used to designate fascism [13].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I don't think you can call these edits here on the Jean-Marie Le Pen article tendentious, as I was the originator [14] of the piece of text in question. I provided a direct quote from newspaper articles here [15]. About the "squeamishness" use of language, I only try to abide by Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and I try to avoid using POV / Ambiguous words in the introduction of an article. I even created an article ( Westland New Post) which details a violent and criminal neo-Nazi group, and was the first one to bring a source to the National Bolshevism article [16], which describes National Bolshevism as a mix of nationalism and bolshevism.

About my use of language, here is an interesting reference I provided earlier on Talk:Front National (France) [17] [18] If academic scholars cannot agree to a definition of a term, then probably wikipedia editors cannot either. Vague and ambiguous terms are best to be avoided in the introduction of an article. Intangible 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I find nationalist much more vague and ambiguous than fascist or far-right. Fred Bauder 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Original research by Intangible

3) in at least one instance Intangible has removed referenced material based on his personal analysis [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

That this analysis was justified, was also noted by another Wikipedia editor, User:Portalis, here [20]. The article's title was "The Neoconservative Mustard of Gerolf Annemans and Philip Dewinter [Vlaams Belang party leaders]." The article mentions Thomas Jefferson, the Cato Institute and Pat Buchanan - not really the poster boys for neoconservatism. Intangible 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

See below (section "Removal of reverenced material") for my comment. -- LucVerhelst 10:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Removal of reverenced material

4) Intangible has removed referenced information and references [21] and [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

See also [23], and my comments above about using vague and ambigous terms in the introduction of an article. Intangible 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The latter was a content dispute, it was a bad newspaper article. Therefore I removed it from the article. See also [24] and other comments I made about this. Intangible 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

"... it was a bad newspaper article". I think this says it all.

Anyway, Intangible is right in that the information I entered wasn't entirely correct, due to my imperfect knowledge of all these different conservative currents (plain conservatisme, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism, etc...). I thought I gave a good summary of the new information in the articles, using the word "neoconservative". Apparently, the exact info was that the Vlaams Belang leaders were inspired by -or referring for their inspiration to- different conservative currents.

I believe however that a good faith editor, certainly one with Intangible's knowledge on the subject, should not have simply removed the information, but corrected it, or at least have tagged it or made a remark on it on the talk page.

I refer to the talk page, section "Neocons", where Intangible up until now refuses to discuss the use of the information, or any improvements on my proposal.

-- LucVerhelst 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tendentious editing by WGee

4) WGee ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in tendentious editing with respect to articles which concern totalitarian leftist regimes [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I will not use this, but it is no good getting after someone for doing exactly the same thing you are. Fred Bauder 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This double standard was also noted by another editor [26]. This 'double standard' is examplified by the comment [27] of User:WGee at the talk page of the Québec Solidaire article. Furthermore, User:WGee has simply removed [28] edits by another user User:Fastifex [29]. I originally provided a source for my edit on the talk page here: [30]. Intangible 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Intangible placed on probation

1) Intangible is placed on probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: