Revision as of 00:17, 15 January 2011

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Clarify meaning of 'party'

1) Please clarify meaning of 'party'. On the simplistic presumption that it means "editors whose conduct will be reviewed", I believe it should include dormant and less-involved editors as well, viz., six dormant (Kitia, Kletetschka, StanPrimmer, Bart Versieck, NealIRC, and Cjeales), five less-involved (The Blade of the Northern Lights, O Fenian, Maxim, Carcharoth, and Sbharris per next link), and, prospectively, any editors newly identified with COI or undue influence during the evidence week at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#COI list (current permalink; total 29 or possibly more). A clarification would also be acceptable that indicates that the editors just-listed are considered nonparties but with the same standard of review as parties; if that is the case, I believe the party list should be shorter, by dropping BrownHairedGirl, Griswaldo, and TML to "less-involved nonparty" status (15 parties and 14+ nonparties). Either way I appreciate the appropriate clarification. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The named editors will be added as parties if and when substantive evidence is presented regarding their involvement in the current dispute. We're not going to add a large number of tangentially involved editors as parties unless we have reason to believe that their conduct warrants review. Kirill  01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Parties (when opening a case) generally means anyone substantially involved in the dispute, or someone who could reasonably have evidence presented about them. We ask that you keep to current issues and issues that haven't been resolved, which means parties who have long been dormant or only tangentially involved at some point don't need to be listed. If during the case we believe that an editor not initially listed may receive sanctions we will ask the clerks to notify them that they have been added as a party. Shell 11:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Said is forthcoming. Thank you, Kirill and ArbCom, for your prompt replies. To my above personal "long list", Timneu22 has identified as the 30th member (under "less-involved"). JJB 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Briefly noting here that I'm aware that JJB has listed me above. As I said in my initial statement, I'm happy to go into more detail about what happened in November 2007 and subsequently if this is needed, but won't do so until it is clear whether it is necessary to revisit what happened then. As I said, I would appreciate it if I could be notified if those matters do come up, but until then I will restrict myself to observing the case unless I think I can help clarify matters. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarify validity of self-identification

2) Please clarify validity of self-identification. I have already gotten three revisions deleted by boldly inserting what I thought was fair use of identification by themselves of editors' real-life personas, but despite requests no clerk has clarified proper fair use (Georgewilliamherbert started to). Because conflict of interest is an important component and the validity of using self-ID will affect the direction of the evidence, I believe it appropriate to have a stipulation that certain parties have self-identified. a) Can someone review this evidence of self-identification and verify that this meets a prima facie standard of presentability? b) If it does, could someone boldly place the data in an appropriate place in this case with an appropriate disclaimer (perhaps even the party list itself, although that is complicated if the request 1 response above involves a nonparty list also)? If parts of it do not, could someone have ArbCom email me to discuss how to hide all the (probably large number of) revisions that would need hiding? c) There is one identification case I judged as a trivial non-self-identification, which I have not continued to insert, but which was part remains only partially hidden after several requests. Could someone either verify its triviality or perform the additional revision hiding? I will be happy to clarify this point further if necessary. d) If it is judged that all disclosures were either self-identification or trivial, it would also appropriate for the record to unhide the three hidden revisions. e) What would be a streamlined process for review and insertion of any new discoveries of self-identification discovered during this case, as the present process seems decentralized and ineffective, as already explained? JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Evidence specifically regarding the real-life identities of users should be submitted privately for Committee review, even if those users have self-identified. Any requests regarding the removal of identifying information should be addressed to the Oversight team. Kirill  02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill is correct; additionally, please see the response to your email. Shell 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Provide requested guidance

3) Please provide requested guidance. My email to ArbCom of 10 November, requesting particular private guidance on two points, was acknowledged but now needs substantive response prior to the conclusion of the evidence phase. I will post here when this guidance has been provided if there is no public comment. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

If you have any doubts about the suitability of particular matters for public discussion, please submit the relevant evidence privately to the Committee for review. Kirill  02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Guidance has been provided. JJB 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment on the advisability of unblocking Kitia

4) Please comment on the advisability of unblocking Kitia. Per Kitia's talkpage, Kitia appears to be a dormant editor without significant prospect of disruption if unblocked. Kitia requested accessibility to ArbCom mediation on this issue specifically and repeatedly between Dec 2007 and Apr 2008 (note edit summary), and declined the potential alternative of participating by email during block. I see no reason why a temporary unblock and offer to participate would be counterproductive. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Kitia has not been heard from for almost three years; I see no reason to believe she is still interested in Misplaced Pages, and no reason to drag her into this proceeding if she has not expressed a desire to participate. Kirill  01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill. Additionally, it is unlikely that we will be substantially reviewing issues from three years ago unless they directly relate to current, on-going issues. Shell 11:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on protocols for in absentia trials

5) Please comment on protocols for in absentia trials. With evidence week occurring over a major American holiday, which was an unanticipated result of my filing time, there is significant possibility that Ryoung122 (last edit 05:13, 14 November 2010), whom I consider the "primary defendant", would miss an opportunity to comment. I fully expected that Ryoung122 would have significant input. It would be appropriate to discuss how in absentia trials normally proceed, and what safeguards are made for Ryoung122's potential later participation. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case are expected to respond within a reasonable period of time. Should Ryoung122 fail to do so, we will adopt any necessary findings regarding his conduct in absentia using the normal rules and procedures; there are no special allowances for editors who refuse to participate in arbitration. Kirill  01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We will take all reasonable steps to ensure Ryoung122 has the opportunity to participate, however, as Kirill said, editors may not avoid having their behavior reviewed by refusing to participate. Shell 11:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on civility vs. advocacy

6) Please comment on civility vs. advocacy. I intend that all contributors should be free to present a civil but very biased case; it is typical in adversarial proceedings to abandon the encyclopedic, neutral tone, in favor of advocacy language that argues heavily in favor of the conclusions desired, with mild rhetoric even being considered a sine qua non. While having heightened respect for process, the process itself is used to compare the points of view each with their best advocate, and even "writing for the enemy" is used adversarially rather than neutrally. To use an example close at hand, the offensive comment "I Initially was inclined to view this as Randy and Sword wielding skeletons theory" with link would be permitted as a statement of reaction to an event under review, although the statement "I am still convinced that is still a substantial factor" would be excluded as a present-tense violation of civility to a current interaction partner and thus as stepping from advocacy into (the outermost circle of) process abuse, although this could be fixed by amendment to "that was a substantial factor". There is slight interrelation between this request and request 5 above. While hard-and-fast rules need not be defined, I invite general feedback on this method of proceeding. JJB 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a general rule, parties are permitted to present their cases as they see fit; gross personal attacks may result in action being taken, but mere negative commentary is permitted within the context of arbitration statements. Kirill  01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accept stipulations

7) Parties, please comment, for the purpose of unambiguous reference to external parties and sources, on whether the following facts and identifications about them can be stipulated or unstipulated by you, in whole or in part (I will notify all current commenters next). These stipulations refer only to external parties and sources, as given by appropriate Internet sources. The primary purpose for their listing and their relevance to the case is to facilitate discussion of self-identified relationships between internal Misplaced Pages editors and the external organizations and sources named, which may constitute conflicts of interest. That is, these stipulations are intended as no different in neutrality from statements in mainspace, although making no warrant of their notability.

1. The "Gerontology Research Group" ("GRG") operates grg.org.
2. The description and purpose of the GRG is self-identified as being (emphasis in original) "Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years."
3. The contact for the GRG is "L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D." ("Coles").
4. The three Supercentenarian Claims Investigators for the GRG are "Mr. Robert Young" ("Young"), "Mr. Louis Epstein" ("Epstein"), and "Mr. Filipe Prista Lucas" ("Prista Lucas").
5. The GRG maintains a current webpage called "Validated Living Supercentenarians" ("E.HTM"). Ibid.
6. Yahoo! Groups maintains a current discussion-group organization called "World's Oldest People" ("WOP").
7. The description and purpose of WOP is self-identified as, "The purpose is to inform the public regarding an area that has been lacking by organizing disparate data into a quantitative approach, while still maintaining a qualitative flavor. In other words, photos will be organized by the age of the individual; false cases will be disallowed or posted separately. It is also hoped this will serve as an opportunity for previously unknown cases to be found." Ibid.
8. Invisionfree.com hosts a current discussion-group organization called "The 110 Club" ("110C"). (Due to blacklisting, rather than linking, I quote the webpage address as being "z3.invisionfree dotcom slash The_110_Club".)
9. The homepage for 110C contains a link to WOP with the link description, "Robert Young's World's Oldest People Yahoo Group." Ibid.
10. Recordholders.org hosts a current webpage called "The Oldest Human Beings" ("OHB").
11. OHB is maintained by "Louis Epstein". Ibid.

JJB 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

JJB, please bear in mind that despite certain superficial similarities to a legal procedure and the occasional use of legalistic terminology, this is not a court and relatively few of the arbitrators, parties, or other editors reading your presentation will be lawyers. For the benefit of other readers, the term "stipulation" or "stipulated facts" in this context means a fact that is agreed upon in advance by all the participants as being true, so that there is no need to present evidence to prove it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Stipulated by proposer. JJB 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry about the confusion, except as it gives Newyorkbrad an opportunity to shine. :D Yes, my intent is just to determine whether other editors formally agree with (stipulate) the validity of the statements, or whether they have any reasonable qualms about (leave unstipulated) the formulation of any of them; wikilink added above. Just a typical attempt at consensus-building that may be premature and/or off-target; I presume this request may remain open throughout the case. Anyway, parties responding as they see fit is exactly what is appropriate, thanks to everyone. JJB 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

JJB left a message on my talk page asking me to comment here (and left identical notes on the talk page of eight other editors). I've read the above, but am not sure what comments are being asked for, or indeed what "stipulation" is, though it seems to be being used in a courtroom legal sense here. I'm also unclear as to what criteria JJB is using to decide who to ask to comment. Rather than comment further, I will wait for an arbitrator to comment and provide guidance on what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Template

8)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

By John J. Bulten

Evidence of impersonation at WOP or 100C

For my first point of analysis, it is necessary to state that I discovered today that someone is impersonating me on either 100C or WOP or both, as indicated by Ryoung122's claim of two postings to one of those two chatsites, probably the former (1, 2). I suppose I am honored to have been impersonated (imitation being flattery and all), although the chatsite operator(s) (and WP editors) should probably take note of the risk of further off-Wiki disruption of this WP process by the impostor. I merely note, for review by others, the stylistic differences from myself such as the party's use of such nonwords as "shes" and "pursecuting", and the party's insistence on such fundamentalism as "I'm standing up for the Bible" while I have been careful in my WP account to stick with neutral presentation of all POVs irrespective of my own beliefs about the Bible. Anyway, enough on that, it takes time away from real evidence I am preparing to post. JJB 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: