Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight

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

• User:OldRight/User:Old Right
• User:Neutrality
• User:Conradrock
• User:SimonP

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. Neutrality^talk 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)

• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ambi 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept; could this be a sockpuppet? I'm thinking mostly of Libertas/Ollieplatt of whom OldRight's userpage seems strikingly similar. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, 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.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

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 other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.