Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Case Opened on 19:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on suggestions for a proposed decision at /Workshop. After development of a proposed decision provisions of it will be voted on at /Proposed decision. Motions by parties may be made and comments added by both the parties and others to suggestions and analysis at /Workshop

Involved parties

Statement by User:Neutrality

I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with Old Right/OldRight. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at User:Neutrality/workshop II. Neutralitytalk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Conradrock

I have dealt with User:OldRight, on one occasion, after the RFC started for the Joe Scarborough article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that User:OldRight needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. Conradrock 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:SimonP

Any hearing should also look into User:Crevaner, an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - SimonP 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Wikipedia. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- OldRight 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - SimonP 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on Neutrality's talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe Conradrock is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- OldRight 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)


Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

NPOV

1) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy contemplates inclusion of all significant information and viewpoints regarding a topic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

2. It is inappropriate to remove relevant well-sourced information from an article, especially to advance a point of view.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument and original research

3) Argument, however perceptive, cannot substitute for research in reputable references, see Wikipedia:Original research.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

User names and locus of conflicts

1) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) edits to Wikipedia articles which concern areas of political or social conflict are the locus of this dispute. Complaints include removal of information in order to advance conservative POV goals as well as addition of material for the same purpose.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of information

2) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) has removed sourced information from articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#The_Passion_of_the_Christ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#Katherine_Harris.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Argumentative POV editing

3) Old Right (talk · contribs) or OldRight (talk · contribs) engages in argumentative POV editing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight/Workshop#Bill_Maher

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Old Right placed on Probation

1) Old Right (talk · contribs) and OldRight (talk · contribs) are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Old Right from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Old Right must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/OldRight&oldid=1079520513"