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.
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.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia is not a proper forum for extensive presentation of a viewpoint regarding a contemporary political controversy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
3) Fair representation of a significant point of view regarding a subject requires that sufficient space to adequately set forth a summary of the reliable and verifiable information available regarding that viewpoint. Determining the amount of space (or subsidiary articles) is not amenable to a formula.
4) Wikipedia articles are a summary of generally accepted knowledge regarding a subject.
5) Arbitration decisions take into consideration "Established Wikipedia customs and common practices".
6) Wikipedia customs and common practices have come to include articles which are point of view forks in the case of controversial subjects.
7) Articles which are of low quality due to point of view editing, sustained edit warring, or other quality and policy issues may be placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee may continue to exercise jurisdiction over such articles until the major problems with the articles have been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.
7.1) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single or small set of articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article or articles themselves on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article(s) for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.
8) Personal opinions on current affairs are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
9) If a newspaper article is used as a source the article shall be identified by name of the newspaper, date of publication, and title of the article (and preferably the author as well). The use of links to online versions of a newspaper may become dead links and nearly useless without adequate identification of the article.
10) Determination of whether a point of view or opinion regarding a matter is significant is measured by the degree to which that point of view or opinion has been published by reliable verifiable sources. It is not measured by the strength or significance attached to it by the Wikipedia editors which share that point of view.
1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:
See also 2004 United States election voting controversies
2) The viewpoint that there were irregularities in the conduct of the 2004 U.S. presidential election is a significant topic regarding which there is substantial public interest, thus fair coverage is appropriate.
3) The articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.
4) The complaints of Phil Sandifer are sufficiently detailed and specific to adequately describe the major problems which exist with respect to the articles which are the subject of this arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence#Original Research and [1]
4.1) Phil Sandifer has adequately justified his addition of the NPOV tag by providing his reasoning as to why the text was a violation of the NPOV policy. [2] The NPOV tag continued to be removed afterwards. [3]
5) It is the belief of Kevin baas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that the significance of the subject matter of the articles is sufficient to over-ride Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy [4]. Thus, according to him, there is a duty to bring this matter to the attention of the public using Wikipedia as the vehicle.
5.1) Kevin baas has stated, in opposition to current NPOV policy, that the significance of a point of view ought to be measured by the amount of support among those who know about a particular minority theory, as in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, and not the amount of support among the general population or experts in the field. This belief guides his defense of the text of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and related articles.
6) RyanFreisling ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noosphere ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have supported Kevin baas in defense of the current state of the articles under dispute.
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.
1) It is recommended that the articles which are the subject of this proceeding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, be consolidated and summarized with excessive detail removed.
2) Due to their poor quality the articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over them until their bloated and propagandistic nature has been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.
2.1) Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.
3) The editors involved in this Arbitration proceeding may continue to edit the articles using the wiki process.
4) This matter is remanded to mediation.
1) If the articles are not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia is not a proper forum for extensive presentation of a viewpoint regarding a contemporary political controversy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
3) Fair representation of a significant point of view regarding a subject requires that sufficient space to adequately set forth a summary of the reliable and verifiable information available regarding that viewpoint. Determining the amount of space (or subsidiary articles) is not amenable to a formula.
4) Wikipedia articles are a summary of generally accepted knowledge regarding a subject.
5) Arbitration decisions take into consideration "Established Wikipedia customs and common practices".
6) Wikipedia customs and common practices have come to include articles which are point of view forks in the case of controversial subjects.
7) Articles which are of low quality due to point of view editing, sustained edit warring, or other quality and policy issues may be placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee may continue to exercise jurisdiction over such articles until the major problems with the articles have been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.
7.1) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single or small set of articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article or articles themselves on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article(s) for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.
8) Personal opinions on current affairs are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
9) If a newspaper article is used as a source the article shall be identified by name of the newspaper, date of publication, and title of the article (and preferably the author as well). The use of links to online versions of a newspaper may become dead links and nearly useless without adequate identification of the article.
10) Determination of whether a point of view or opinion regarding a matter is significant is measured by the degree to which that point of view or opinion has been published by reliable verifiable sources. It is not measured by the strength or significance attached to it by the Wikipedia editors which share that point of view.
1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:
See also 2004 United States election voting controversies
2) The viewpoint that there were irregularities in the conduct of the 2004 U.S. presidential election is a significant topic regarding which there is substantial public interest, thus fair coverage is appropriate.
3) The articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.
4) The complaints of Phil Sandifer are sufficiently detailed and specific to adequately describe the major problems which exist with respect to the articles which are the subject of this arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence#Original Research and [1]
4.1) Phil Sandifer has adequately justified his addition of the NPOV tag by providing his reasoning as to why the text was a violation of the NPOV policy. [2] The NPOV tag continued to be removed afterwards. [3]
5) It is the belief of Kevin baas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that the significance of the subject matter of the articles is sufficient to over-ride Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy [4]. Thus, according to him, there is a duty to bring this matter to the attention of the public using Wikipedia as the vehicle.
5.1) Kevin baas has stated, in opposition to current NPOV policy, that the significance of a point of view ought to be measured by the amount of support among those who know about a particular minority theory, as in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, and not the amount of support among the general population or experts in the field. This belief guides his defense of the text of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and related articles.
6) RyanFreisling ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noosphere ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have supported Kevin baas in defense of the current state of the articles under dispute.
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.
1) It is recommended that the articles which are the subject of this proceeding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, be consolidated and summarized with excessive detail removed.
2) Due to their poor quality the articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over them until their bloated and propagandistic nature has been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.
2.1) Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.
3) The editors involved in this Arbitration proceeding may continue to edit the articles using the wiki process.
4) This matter is remanded to mediation.
1) If the articles are not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.
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.
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.