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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

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:

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:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism provides "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. [1]" (This specific language is in Template:Blp). Removal of poorly sourced negative information about a living person is an exception to the 3RR rule, Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree. However, the implication is that Dionyseus was merely cleaning up my mess, when, in fact, a considerable majority of users agreed with my edit, as I noted on the evidence page. Furthermore, I provided five sources: two of the most respected chess news sites, the FIDE official Chess Olympiad site, and two major newspapers. Now, you may still find these all insufficient for whatever reason, but I do think it deserves a small discussion at least.Danny Pi 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability

3) Wikipedia:Verifiability is a fundamental policy. Only information which has been published in a reliable source may be included in an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Allegations

4) Determining the point at which widespread allegations of an unproven offense become so significant in themselves that information about them are properly included in an article is a matter of editorial judgement. On the one hand, the fact of widespread rumors or allegations may be verifiable, one the other hand, mere allegations ought not stand in for confirmation of an offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. We all know where there is smoke, there must be fire. Fred Bauder 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Thatcher131. Fred Bauder 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would remind you my edit was: "Furthermore, allegations and rumors of computer assistance and cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov had cheated." Danny Pi 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this statement would give the impression that the fire is actually there. I think it implies, accurately, that there was/is a controversy about the topic. Danny Pi 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accessibility of a reference

5) Using references as a source which are difficult to access is problematic. Both readers and other editors should be able to check the sources of Wikipedia information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm uncertain about this. For example, I have access at work to the complete full text of the NY Times through a subscription service. If I cite an old article, someone who wants to verify it will have to find a large main library with the Times on microfilm. Does that make it "inaccessible" and therefore problematic? What about old books that are now carried by few libraries? Certainly requiring a subscription to a Bulgarian news service has at least two levels of inaccessibility (cost and of little interest to non-Bulgarians) where my examples have one level (requires a trip to a big city or university library), but still I'm uncertain of this as a principle. Thatcher131 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Thatcher, I also had a somewhat negative reaction to this. There is a lot of information in textbooks which, perhaps due to copyright issues, don't make it onto the internet. If this mean that information which is only in books is allowed, that would mean a serious blow to several excellent articles, including featured articles, which rely on paper literature for sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies

6) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers requests forbearance toward users who make mistakes related to inexperience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is Veselin Topalov, a biography of a living person. There are a number of specific issues but the prime one is inclusion of negative information regarding Veselin Topalov, see Talk:Veselin_Topalov#Cheating_allegations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Danielpi has been discourteous

2) Danielpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discourteous to Dionyseus [2]. This resulted in a warning by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3] which he deleted from his talk page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence#Ryan_Delaney. After Dionyseus made several newbie mistakes couldn't recognize a comma splice and though NPOV stood for negative point of view Danielpi expressed open contempt [4] and [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of inaccessible source

3) Danielpi has used a source, which while not obscure, is nevertheless inaccessible to other readers and editors [6].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I assume the alternative sources are not as good and that this one summarizes them, but no one other than a scholar or Bulgarian is going to pay to subscribe to the Bulgarian News Service. Fred Bauder 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I've responded in more detail on the discussion page. Briefly, though, you're singling out one of six sources- and the least accessible one at that. I'll grant you that it's inaccessible, but what about the other five? Danny Pi 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Topalov cheating accusations are any different from the Lance Armstrong doping allegations. In fact, they are eerily analogous. The only difference is that Lance Armstrong has received quite a bit more media attention. I think it might be useful to mention though that we're talking about chess, not the Tour de France. I don't know how big a firestorm you expect, but most major chess events aren't even reported in the mainstream media at all. That these accusations were mentioned in NY Post and Guardian alone constitute considerably more media attention than chess receives, generally. It may be important to see this in context. Danny Pi 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Other forums

4) The disputed information has been considered and published by professional journalists [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In response to Thatcher, I would simply refer you to Mig Greengard's site or the FIDE Chess Olympiad site excerpting Chess Today. These do more than hint. Chess Today in particular does practice chess journalism (as does Greengard, if you ignore the user comments posted below the main article)- and while it also requires a small subscription fee ($2/month, I think), it is excerpted free of charge on that FIDE site, which makes that particular paragraph quite accessible indeed. Furthermore, these allegations never were intended to stand in for fact. If you read my original edit, it does not even imply that the allegations are true. It merely states that the allegations were made- and I take pains to mention that the allegations are unproven. Danny Pi 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher131, the article does not report on the allegations. Dionyseus 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If you read the chess column linked to above, you will find it doesn't report on the allegations (with NPOV journalism and quotes from both sides) or even discuss the allegations, it only hints at the allegations. Per Fred above, at what point should allegations be allowed to stand in for unproven facts? More on talk page. Thatcher131 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

5) There is no evidence by checkuser or otherwise which offers credible evidence that the threatening email received by Dionyseus came from Danielpi.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Is there any way to check if he wrote it himself? Is there any way for you to verify that he even received these emails at all? If so, I'd appreciate a look into that. Danny Pi 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do in order to prove that I received these emails? I can take screenshots, and I would be willing to contact my ISP if it would help. Dionyseus 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point now, Thatcher131. Dionyseus 13:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The e-mails that Dionyseus posted came from g-mail; the IPs that he apparently hoped with tie them to Daniel were in fact the gmail servers. It may be possible to verify through gmail that the messages were recieved as claimed but I doubt there would be much point as gmail won't be able to tie the username "structuralism@gmail.com" to any specific human being one way or the other (since its free and doesn't require credit card etc. to register). Thatcher131 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you can't prove he sent them. The IPs are gmail so they are not diagnostic, and anyone could have signed his name. Thatcher131 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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:

Danielpi banned for personal attacks

1) Danielpi is banned for one week for discourtesy and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In my defence, I made attempts at compromise and consensus resolution with Dionyseus, as I documented on the evidence page [attempts at peaceful resolution]. I admit to some incivility toward Dionyseus, although it did not (IMHO) escalate to profanity or name-calling. After Dionyseus's numerous unilateral RV's (against consensus), accusations, fallacious argumentation, underhanded rhetorical tactics, and violation of mediation compromise, I would hope you take the context of my frustration into consideration. Danny Pi 07:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, actually, if you go ahead with this block, it would be a contradiction of wiki's [blocking policy]. I must admit that I was a bit irritated that you decided to "punish" me for being rude to a user, who clearly fails to understand rudimentary grammar, who pushes POV, and who is so insistent on it that he RV's against consensus. I have declined to continue edit warring with him, and I have tried to take the high road but this has evidently been overlooked by Arbcom. In view of this, I did believe (no offence intended) that Arbcom was not being quite fair. So, I decided to research the justification for an admin block, and it could not be more clearly stated that blocks are to be used as preventative and not punitive measures. Furthermore, the policy indicates that it is to be used only as a last resort. The only possible justification you could use is to claim that a consensus exists that I am a nuisance. However, the consensus on the Topalov site was clearly in my favor. Blocking me would therefore indicate a major shift in wiki policy. Although I am not clear on the hierarchy of wiki policy makers, I assume you all have the right to change policy. That said, if you do decide to block me, be aware that you are doing this against the stated blocking policy.Danny Pi 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone read this? Danny Pi 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editing recommendation

2) It is recommended that Veselin Topalov be edited in accord with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Special attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism and Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material making removal of poorly sourced negative information from the biography of a living person an exception to the three revert rule (3RR).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What if that negative information is well-sourced, and there exists a consensus to keep, as is (debatably) the case here? Danny Pi 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Recommendations to Dionyseus

3) It is recommended to Dionyseus that he consider carefully the suggestions of others regarding punctuation and other matters he is not familiar with. It is no use arguing about well established punctuation conventions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In fairness, what about his wikilawyering his way around 3RR? Unilaterally editing against a clear consensus? Reluctance to compromise on any issue? I provided numerous diffs on my evidence page. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I'd like a fair shake. After my week of suspension (assuming you all agree on it), I'll go back to editing the Kramnik and Topalov articles. With but a warning, Dionyseus will very likely feel emboldened to make more POV edits, trumpeting his "victory" in ArbCom, as past behavior suggests he will. Not only am I concerned with the fairness of punishment, I'm also concerned that this will make editing the chess player articles a nightmare. Danny Pi 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanielPi again personally attacks me and assumes bad faith. In the evidence page I have demonstrated that your claims that I have violated 3RR is false. [8] I have also documented your multiple failed attempts to persuade people to speak out against me. [9] Dionyseus 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my evidence demonstrates that Dionyseus toes the line of 3RR and tries to wikilawyer his way out of it. Some of those 3RR may have been legitimate RV's- but he has done it many times- I can't imagine he has (legitimate) excuses for each and every occasion. As for "other people", I was merely trying to demonstrate a history of bad behavior on the part of Dionyseus, so I contacted people who have had trouble with him in the past. I encouraged them to comment even if they found their interaction with him positive. And as I point out in my evidence page, on one of the links you provide, to Wolfkeeper, he says of Dionyseus: "Well, he seems to delete material and insert POV that has no supporting evidence he can cite." Danny Pi 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It's people like Dionyseus that turn Wikipedia into a joke. Protected by flimsy rules desperate to make the entire world fair for everybody for ever and ever, Dionyseus and others like him foul the Wiki when in any other institution they'd be pitched out onto the pavements and told to fuck off by somebody with half a brain and in control.70.65.6.167 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

1) Violation of any ban imposed by this decision may be sanctioned by a brief block, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dionyseus#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: