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.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Blocking Smeelgova

1) I move that Smeelgova be blocked from editting The Hunger Project page because of the blatant POV of her editting.--Jcoonrod 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll consider it, but I am not prepared, based on preliminary evidence, to support this. Fred Bauder 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocking Jcoonrod

1) Blatant POV is not a crime on Wikipedia, admittedly most editors have POV. However, I would move for a temporary block of user Jcoonrod, due to his legal threats, and obvious bias due to his status as COO and VP within The Hunger Project organization, as well as his numerous edits with little or no comment.--Smeelgova 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll consider it, but I am not prepared, based on preliminary evidence, to support this. Fred Bauder 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have not editted the page since requesting arbitration, and am quite happy to continue to sit this out. Please note, I have made no legal threats - I have confidence in Wikipedia's ability to enforce its policies - and I have always endeavored to follow those policies.--Jcoonrod 12:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1], as well as request by administrator Jmabel at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Evidence, entitled "Jcoonrod has made an implied legal threat" [2], as well as [3], for more information RE: above motion.--Smeelgova 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stub pending arbitration

1) Given that the majority of the page is currently devoted to criticism that is in dispute, I move that The Hunger Project page be replaced temporarily by an organizational stub pending resolution by the arbitration committee.--Jcoonrod 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This has often been our practice in the case of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. However, as the article now stands, criticism is relatively mild. 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would agree with said motion above, provided stub provided brief mention (and reference(s) ), to the organization's criticism and actions against the media.Smeelgova 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a draft which should suffice in User:Jcoonrod/sandbox4.--Jcoonrod 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would suffice, as long as another sentence or two were added to reference the early relationships to Erhard Seminars Training, and actions taken against the media. Also, as stated above, I would prefer that even a stub have some referenced information either in blockquote or citation format, as a references section at the bottom.Smeelgova 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed temporary stub in User:Jcoonrod/sandbox4 states: "Particularly in its early days, The Hunger Project was criticized for its association with one of its founders, Werner Erhard. This matter is currently the subject of Wikipedia arbitration." -- The first quoted sentence does not adequately express the nature of criticism of the Hunger Project at any time. The second quoted sentence does not accurately summarize the subject of the current arbitration process. -- Pedant17 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's called a stub. It's does not repeat either POV, it merely alerts people that there is a dispute. If you have an alternative recommendation that you think I would find interimly acceptable, please suggest it.--Jcoonrod 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed stub misleads as to both criticism and the subject of the current arbitration. I would rather see the article retained in its current unsatisfactory form than replaced by such an inadequate stub. -- Pedant17 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a temporary, protected stub. - Jmabel | Talk 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is wikipedia policy that "protected pages are considered harmful." This should not be done in anything but the most extreme cases. --Descendall 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a bad and dangerous precedent. It suggests to edit-warriors and partisans that Wikipedia articles they don't like can be made to disappear by starting an arbitration case. This is not how the editing of Wikipedia articles should proceed. --FOo 05:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats and related matters

I am listing the following in one section, because I see them as a series of linked propositions. Obviously, the arbitrators could rule on each item in the sequence separately. If one of the arbitrators wants to reorganize this into several items to be ruled on separately, that is fine with me. I would prefer that no one other than the arbitrators reorganize this.

I would like to see the arbitrators reaffirm that legal threats are not permitted in the Wikipedia community, and that no contributor may simultaneously threaten legal action and continue to participate as a contributor.
I would like to see the arbitrators rule on whether, in these circumstances, Jcoonrod calling content "libelous" was an implied legal threat. (I personally believe it was, and the involvement by Brad and Danny suggests to me that they had the same concern.)
If the arbitrators agree with me on the previous point, and if Jcoonrod wishes to continue to edit Wikipedia, the remarks about the content being libelous should either be withdrawn or substantiated.
Jcoonrod has claimed that this is not a legal threat, but has also so far proved unwilling to withdraw the remark.
Mother Jones would be considered a generally reliable source.
One could reasonably assume that a book published by Addison-Wesley qualifies as a reliable source.
Showing that the situation described by the Mother Jones article did not exist nearly a decade later is not substantiation of their statement having been libelous (or even false) at the time it was made.

- Jmabel | Talk 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Legal threats are indeed grounds for banning users, but so far I have only found implied threats. If we permit libelous information in our articles, The Hunger Project may have a possible cause of action. Wikipedia is in agreement with The Hunger Project that libelous information should not be in a Wikipedia article. I would rather examine the charges of libel than have them withdrawn. All publishers occasionally publish questionable material. It is possible Mother Jones did. LIkewise Addison-Wesley. I have not seen the Mother Jones article and cannot comment, but I will concede that the operations of The Hunger Project have changed over the years as they responded both to criticism and to the exigencies of their stated goal and that early criticisms may have been valid at the time they were made. Fred Bauder 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Libelous, by any dictionary definition I've ever seen, is a description of the defamatory nature of content, not on issues of legal action. Describing the nature of content is not a legal threat, and I have made no legal threat, and I've made that clear on numerous occasions. I believe I am following Wikipedia procedure in good faith by bringing what I consider a violation of Wikipedia's policies. That said, discussion of reliable sources is an entirely separate matter.--Jcoonrod 12:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a finding that any time an editor claims that he or she (or his or her organization) has been libeled, there is an implicit legal threat. --Descendall 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is an implicit legal threat, but it is welcome communication as an opportunity to correct the situation arises. Fred Bauder 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If legal threats are now "welcome communication," I'd like the arbitrators to at least directly say that legal threats are now allowed on Wikipedia, and that contributors may simultaneously threaten legal action and continue to participate as a contributor. If we're going to break from the no legal threats rule, then it should be done in a transparant manner. --Descendall 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. What I am advancing here is a strategy for dealing with complaints, not all of which are well founded, but all of which ought to listened to courteously. The no legal threats policy is based on dealing with threats like a user suing because they were banned due to engaging in biased editing or disruption. Obviously there is an overlap. Fred Bauder 11:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy needs to be taken seriously. When an editor persistently reiterates claims that another editor is committing crimes by editing, they are making legal threats. The accuser needs to cease participating in Wikipedia editing until the legal issue is resolved. --FOo 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the United States (where THP and Wikipedia are both based) is one of those countries in which libel is not a crime. However, I think this actually hurts Jcoonrod's argument, as he cannot initiate a criminal proceeding (unless he's a prosecutor), but he can initiate a civil proceeding. I think he was threatening to do just that. --Descendall 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must give those who are aggrieved by negative information every opportunity to complain, both on the talk pages of the articles and to the administration of the project. Otherwise we will have no opportunity to correct problems. Fred Bauder 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please point out when Jcoonrod has stated that he wants to start leagl preceedings? All he has said is that some information is libellous, this is not the same as saying he wishes to atart a civil case for libel. Libellous is a perfectly acceptable adjective, surely. So if somebody could specifically point out the legal threats I would be most interested, as I know Jcoonrod would be. --Wisd e n17 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate material

I am listing the following in one section, because I see them as a series of linked propositions. Obviously, the arbitrators would rule on each item in the sequence separately. If one of the arbitrators wants to reorganize that, that is fine with me. I prefer that the other parties to the case do not.

The statement in the article about THP staff editing Wikipedia was inappropriate and unencyclopedic. It should not have been placed in the article in the first place and should not have been re-added.
Smeelgova was not the original author of this sentence.
In the course of an edit war, Smeelgova restored this sentence.
When this was pointed out, Smeelgova promptly apologized for that particular edit.

-- Jmabel | Talk 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unless it is reported by a verifiable and reliable source that staff of The Hunger Project have been editing their article on Wikipedia it is not information which can be used in the article despite the obvious fact. Fred Bauder 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adequate references

1) References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly source negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful, even libelous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing your own article

3) Editing an article concerning an organization you control or are involved with is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:21, 16 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:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of dispute is The Hunger Project. Issues include editing by an officer of the organization and insertion of poorly sourced critical material which relates to the history of the organization and its relationship to one of its founders Werner Erhard and EST.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jcoonrod

2) According to the user page of Jcoonrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "John Coonrod is vice president and chief operating officer of The Hunger Project. Most of his edits have related to The Hunger Project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involvement by Danny

3) Danny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), apparently acting on a complaint, made edits removing critical material from The Hunger Project [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Revert by Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [9], later restored by her [10], see User_talk:Danny#The_Hunger_Project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Critical references

4) Some of the references used, especially to the critical material supported by Smeelgova, lead to dead links, lack a page reference, or are inaccessible to an ordinary reader [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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[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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Material from The Hunger Project itself

1) In the absence of challenge, non-controversial material obtained from the The Hunger Project website, http://www.thp.org/ may be included in the article. Such material may be added by Jcoonrod or any other user associated with The Hunger Project. If such material is contested, in good faith, by any other user the material shall be removed unless a reliable published source is available for the information. In this context, a good faith challenge requires some reason to doubt the validity of the information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Negative material

2) Critical information may be included in the article only if it is supported by verifiable information which has been published by a reputable source. Material lacking an adequate reference may be removed by anyone without discussion. Such removal is an exception to the three revert rule. Critical information shall be attributed to its source and be placed in context, in other words, practices which are alleged to have occurred during the organizational or formative stages of the Project shall be identified as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Current editors

3) It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stubbing of the article

4) Due to the presence of poorly sourced negative information in the history of the article, upon the motion of Jcoonrod the article may be deleted and replaced by a stub. Any administrator may perform this action upon Jcoonrod's request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like for this "stubbing" to include the article created by Smeelgova on Joan Holmes (which largely duplicates material on The Hunger Project page) and deletion of the discussion pages, so that things can start afresh.-- Jcoonrod 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that. Fred Bauder 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For example, the Talk page includes some inappropriate comments by Descendall about my personal life, eg: [[12]]. --Jcoonrod 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above reference to a comment by Descendall by User Jcoonrod does not currently appear in the discussion page of The Hunger Project. However, the current discussion page is important and relevant and ongoing, as stated below.Smeelgova 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for special rules and procedures on stubbification leaves me confused. Replacing the article with a stub may remove information which currently lacks adequate sourcing, but it removes other information as well -- whether positive, negative or even balancing; whether well-sourced, marginally sourced or unsourced. What does suppressing information achieve? For how long should Wikipedia suppress information -- even impeccably validated information -- provided and refined by its editors? -- Pedant17 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can of course stubbify any article, without reference to involved parties or to administrators. Reversions and re-editings cope with such censorship at the level of fine detail, without the necessary loss of good material along with the inadequate. -- Pedant17 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties failed to agree on the wording of an NPOV stub for The Hunger Project in recent weeks -- possibly because they had in general more interest in expanding and correcting an extensive article than in the apparent red-herring of suppressing the facts and replacing them with a tendentious stub. I suggest that prolixity has the potential to promote NPOV, whereas a stub may mislead. -- Pedant17 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative information about an organization should be verified by publication in a reliable source. In this case even well-sourced negative information needs to be placed in context. I find the accusation that The Hunger Project was used in the beginning to recruit EST customers quite credible. But that was 30 years ago. EST is no longer operating. Trying to tar the current project with stale information is unfair. Even the lotus has its roots in the mud. Fred Bauder 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In relationship to stubbification, there is poorly sourced negative information in the history of both the article and the talk page. That is why they need to be deleted. If the same thing happens again, it will all have to be deleted again. That the good that is mixed with bad must also be deleted is a loss, but the way to avoid that is to not post poorly sourced negative information. Fred Bauder 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a counsel of perfection involves sourcing all material. I can see that if a policy of stubbification ensues, any additions may cause the poisoning of the whole article and its consequent (re-)reduction to a stub, since the definition of "poorly-sourced" remains debatable. I fail to see how this slowed-down edit-war will help develop Wikipedia. -- Note that the article currently contains inadequately sourced non-"negative" information, but this does not appear as a ground for stubbifying the article, or even as a ground for the deletion of a such a fragment. A more even-handed approach might eliminate the need for wholesale stbubification. -- Pedant17 00:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an encyclopedic article, not a newspaper periodical article. Historical information is relevant to the development of the organization. The talk page may contain material sourced and unsourced, because it is in fact discussion and not assumed to be factual in nature. Everyone who goes to the talk/discussion page knows that they are going there to debate and voice opinions, and not to post information. Constantly striving to remove this information and free speech discussion seems to be a form of patrolling for potentially negative information.Smeelgova 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am absolutely against deleting the talk page. There is no need for things to "start afresh." There is a need, however, in the minds of some, to remove any and all debate about The Hunger Project. None of the critical debate about the article that is currently on the talk page was added in bad faith. Please note that Jcoonrod's attempt to end debate about the article was reverted. It would be shameful for an administrator to delete it again. There are all sorts of talk pages with heated debate about living people/existing institutions. We don't go around deleting the talk pages of these subjects, and we shouldn't start such a practice now. --Descendall 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Descendall as to retaining the discussion pages. The Joan Holmes page does not largely duplicates material on The Hunger Project page. Rather it utilizes blockquoted sourced citation format, with 8 (so far) references. Smeelgova 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied the talk page yet and so won't specifically express agreement or disagreement about its deletion, but I note that the recent Shuckardt case had a finding that while libellous stuff can be removed from talk pages, other stuff (including negative fact or opinion) should stay. On the face of it, that sounds like the current talk page's contents shouldn't be deleted except for any libellous materials that it might contain. Phr (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Talk pages are customarily deleted along with the article. If you don't want the talk page deleted, you may be better off arguing for non-deletion of the article. I'm uncomfortable with this proposal to delete the article because of the article history, unless compelling and specific reasons for deletion are presented that go way beyond what's stated above. If we deleted instead of reverting every time someone made an unsourced negative edit to a biography, we might as well delete every politician biography in Wikipedia. Blanking the article and writing new text might be reasonable. Phr (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing jurisdiction

5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction of this dispute and may, on its own motion, or on the motion of a concerned user, reopen it for further consideration.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Blocking Smeelgova

Blocking Jcoonrod

Stub pending arbitration

Legal threats and related matters

Inappropriate material

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Template

Adequate references

Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

Editing your own article

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template

Locus of dispute

Jcoonrod

Involvement by Danny

Critical references

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies[edit]

Template

Material from The Hunger Project itself

Negative material

Current editors

Stubbing of the article

Continuing jurisdiction

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion[edit]