Revision as of 15:25, 25 January 2006

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

num)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Min Zhu still subject to edit warring

1) The parties continue to argue over Min Zhu and other articles. In the interest of a stable article version, the articles are to be left without mention of the so-called "Zhu/Zeleny controversy" (only as the most conservative option--the arbitration committee does not endorse this version). Demi /_C 16:36, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Edit warring? Min Zhu - History says otherwise. In fact, the only two parties to this RFAr who have been active on the article since December have been from his camp, FloNight and Just zis Guy, you know?/JzG. I haven't edited the article since 26 December, and Larvatus since 24 December. There's no ongoing edit war. I think Demi meant that there continues an exchange of viewpoints at Talk:Min_Zhu where we've been close several times to reaching consensus. A lively discussion is a very different thing than an "edit war." Again, there is no edit war. FeloniousMonk 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Actually, you're correct, there's nothing that currently needs to be stopped by arbitration committee injunction. I saw the contentious talk page, the bad state of the article, and a few edits out of the context of the history and jumped to a conclusion. Demi /_C 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

num) {proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability

1) The principles of verifiability, how to write biographies of living persons, neutrality and no original research are the controlling guides in writing biographical articles or information on Misplaced Pages. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I agree with this, that's what these policies were designed for. Jtkiefer ---- 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Significance of information

2) The existence and nature of a "controversy" must be established by third-party artifacts of the controversy, such as publication in reliable, reputable sources (reliable sources, reputable sources). Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

1. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions states "Misplaced Pages articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court." The documents supporting the contested content are all public record, freely available through the California Superior Courts, Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties to any interested parties. FeloniousMonk 08:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Repeating allegations

3) The mere fact of an accusation's existence in "the public record", or "as part of a court case" does not inherently make it repeatable in Misplaced Pages. Factors such as whether a court ever considered the truth of the accusation or whether an attempt at balanced reporting has been made by a third party could lead to the reasonable consensus conclusion that such a source is not credible. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The reasoning given here only works as to truth of the allegations, not that the allegations were made, which was the only relevant issue per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. The article's original content did not comment in any way on the veracity of the allegation that Min Zhu molested his daughter. It only stated that his daughter claimed he did, which is supported by court documents freely available to the public: (pg 24), (pg 36). FeloniousMonk 09:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I agree, though this should only apply to accusations made, actual judgements and such should be considered verifiable if they can be backed up in the court's final decisions. Though I think a hard fast rule of this would be a bad idea due to the fact that it may or may not be universally applicable. Jtkiefer ---- 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal involvement

4) Editors should not edit subjects in which they have too strong a bias to write neutrally. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

5) Editors should not make personal attacks. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. A simple rule but one that many editors seem to forget. Jtkiefer ---- 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrator privileges

6) Administrators should not use their special privileges to further their position in a conflict dispute, even by implication (e.g. threat of blocking). Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. This should be reworded, it is said in quite a few places that admins do not have special privileges over regular editors. They just have a few extra tools such as rollback and blocking. Jtkiefer ---- 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   I'm used to using the word "privilege" in a technical sense. I mean it in the sense I think you mean, maybe "Administrators should not use administrator tools such rollback and blocking..." Demi /_C 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

7) Editors should assume good faith. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. As per the allegation that "Larvatus ascribes motives to other editors and their edits," by FloNight. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback should not be used in content disputes

8) The administrative rollback function should only be used to revert bad faith edits, and not valid edits. (See Misplaced Pages:Revert.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I agree with Misplaced Pages:Revert#Admins that "rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint." There has been no hard and fast rule enforced on wikipedia that rollback should only be used to revert bad faith edits. There is an established, well known and yet to be proscribed convention within the community that allows for administrator discretion in when to use rollback. Additionally, there is no consensus within the community on the use of rollback on edits other than simple vandalism. The community is evenly split between those who support a narrow implementation of rollback, and those who support a more broad implementation, as is seen at the Admin accountability poll. Insisting on the narrow implementation here goes against a convention followed by large portion of the admin community and ignores the viewpoint of 50% of those who spoke on the issue at the accountability poll. From a practical standpoint, to implement the narrow view on rollback there is a large gray area between an emerging content dispute and responding to vandalism that fits within the narrow implementation of rollback. What constitutes "bad faith edits" vs. "valid edits" will always be a subjective judgment, and the distinction has to this day not been defined objectively in how it applies to rollback. Left to rely on their own yardstick, everyone has a different threshold value. Reviewing my comments at User talk:FCYTravis during the dispute in December over the WebEx content, clearly it's obvious I felt that I was responding to vandalism at that time . FeloniousMonk 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Another simple one that I support. Jtkiefer ---- 00:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors whose edits are rolled back should be notified

9) When rolling back edits, especially non-vandalism ones, admins should notify the editors whose edits were reverted. (See Misplaced Pages:Revert.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Larvatus' assumption of bad faith

1) Larvatus tends to ascribe motives to other editors' actions, such as in and . Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. As per FloNight's allegations; I am neutral in this dispute (I just have nothing better to do than read through the evidence and add stuff to the workshop that others might find helpful). Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

FCYTravis' assumption of bad faith

2) FCYTravis has ascribed motives to other editors' actions, , , , , . FCYTravis discounted valid votes on AFD on vague allegations about "meatpuppets" . FeloniousMonk 10:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Am a bit uncomfortable about the characterisation of AFD as a "vote" -- there's a reason why Votes for Deletion was renamed. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk misused the rollback function

2) FeloniousMonk has used the rollback administrative feature to revert in content disputes: , , . Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Please see my previous comment on the issue here. Also, if I felt I was responding to vandalism, which evidence shows at that time I did , then by necessity it's not a misuse of the rollback feature. FeloniousMonk 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

FCYTravis misused the rollback function

FCYTravis has used the rollback administrative feature to revert in content disputes: Larvatus 10:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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. 13:16, 12 January 2006

Template

num) {proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Larvatus banned from WebEx

1) Larvatus is banned for a period of one year from editing articles relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Larvatus placed on probation

2) Larvatus is placed on probation for a period of one year, and may be banned by any administrator not directly involved in a content dispute from any page he disrupts, in any namespace. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk warned regarding administrative privileges

3) FeloniousMonk is admonished for misuse of administrative privileges. Demi /_C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3b) FeloniousMonk is reminded that it is improper to use administrator privileges or the threat thereof to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and/or intimidate other users.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. A somewhat lighter version of the above. Jtkiefer ---- 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FCYTravis warned regarding WP:AGF

4) FCYTravis is reminded that Misplaced Pages enjoins all users to assume good faith. FCYTravis is reminded to not discount AFD votes without substantial proof of misdeed. FeloniousMonk 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

num) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Larvatus banned from WebEx

1) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects the ban time shall be reset and he may be banned for a short period up to 1 week increasing to a maximum time of 1 month after the 5th violation.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1b) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects the ban time shall be reset and he may be banned for a short period up to 1 week increasing to a maximum time of 1 year after the 5th violation.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

1c) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects he may be banned at an administrator's discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: