Revision as of 22:21, 26 November 2005

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:

Motion by Rangerdude that Jayjg be recused

1) I request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this arbitration for reasons outlined here. Rangerdude 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Refused. You have provided no valid reason for recusal; four comments made on a talk page on August 4 are not "extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet". Jayjg 20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Contrary to his claims above, Jayjg's comments on those talk pages, which are a small sample, indicate a strong personal bias toward User:Cberlet and his content. Examples:

• "Nonsense. Cberlet's material has clearly been shown to be encyclopedic, and you have completely failed in showing it is not."
• "His (Berlet's) work has been quoted in encyclopedic sources; that's all that is required."
• "WP:AUTO is a guideline, not a policy, Cberlet has not violated it, and it relates directly to articles about the authors or works they have written, not other articles, and certainly not Talk: pages."

These edits threaten the impartiality of this hearing as they show that (1) Jayjg has already decided and vigorously asserted that Cberlet's disputed content is "encyclopedic," and (2) Jayjg has already decided that Cberlet has not violated WP:AUTO in attempting to influence the content of his own pages. As both of these issues are among what's being considered in this case, Jayjg's statements above should be considered prejudicial. Should Jayjg continue to participate in this Arbcom hearing, I do not reasonably see how any outcome involving his input could be considered fair, impartial, or valid in light of these demonstrated biases. Rangerdude 20:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's more evidence that Jayjg even participated in the earlier dispute resolution phases of this case:

• - voted in support of Cberlet in user RfC
• - Stated support for Cberlet
• - Endorsed Cberlet's position in RfC.

It is completely inappropriate for an Arbcom member who was directly involved in a dispute himself to participate in a case about that dispute. Rangerdude 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 1 by Nobs01 that proposals be removed from /Proposed decision

2) I motion the proposals that reference nobs specifically at Proposed final decision be suspended as premature as the process is still in the Evidence phase. nobs 18:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Evidence supporting those findings has been submitted. Fred Bauder 18:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Whether evidence supporting them has been submitted or not, it remains the case that not all parties to this dispute have even had time to respond to it. Proposing remedies and final decisions now is very premature and gives the appearance of an unfair proceeding. The same can be said of acceptance of this case by Jayjg, who was an active participant in this dispute in a way that supported Cberlet and has yet to respond to repeated requests for his recusal as required by the Arbitration policy. Rangerdude 19:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Let me include, the unsubstantiated smear Mr. Berlet has pronounced against Mr. Laird Wilcox, the source of nobs purported "links and ties", remains locked on the Chip Berlet article, and a Misplaced Pages namespace is now being used to propagate an unsubstantiated smear. These proposed findings only continue that problem. nobs 19:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem with jumping to conclusions in the decision stage before evidence has even been introduced or discussed - in effect, all of those decision proposals were made without even hearing both sides of the dispute. That creates a highly prejudicial environment in the case proceedings from the very start, which is why I consider Nobs' request to suspend these motions to be a valid one at this point. I hate to say it, but way this case has been handled to date does not give me much confidence in its fairness. Rangerdude 19:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. More evidence: the positive talk now going on at Talk:Chip Berlet#Proposal for a New Approach and Talk:Chip Berlet#This wikipedia article is ridiculous with editors who previously had no input in that article, and the constructive remedies being discussed, and any resultant improvements to the article after the lock is removed, would disprove Nobs01 "disrupted Misplaced Pages to prove a point". Further, as I pledged here , I will not edit war in the namespace, and limit my input in discussion. (also see earlier pledge, 9 August which was adhered to; I'd be happy to abstain indefinetely if normal Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Processes and Precedents could be applied by all parties. Thank you. nobs 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs asks the committee to note, nobs good faith abstaintion from editing the Talk:Chip Berlet page on 9 August remained in force until 12 November , after Cberlet's demonstrated breach of good faith, with the exception of the two questions on 20 September on Mr. Berlet's unsubstantiated ethics attack on Mr. Wilcox , at which time nobs was answered with another personal attack. nobs 02:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 2 by Nobs01 on "acting in concert"

1) I Motion for a Committe Ruling on Cberlet's conspiracy theory that users named were "acting in concert". To wit, Cberlet states,

• "Herschelkrustofsky, also suggests I am a government agent"
• User:Nobs01 is charged with inserting language on Talk page, "certain American critics of the agency as part of their effort to destroy it." .

This appears to be the product of a fantastic imagination, that users "acting in concert" are accusing Cberlet of being a government agent, while others are accused of suggesting Cberlet was among certain American critics who wanted to destroy the Central Intelligence Agency. And the Committee should take note of a reckless disregard by the complaining party to forge some semblance of a coherent arguement before filing an Arbitration Dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Someone familiar with both of you would not be surprised at the contradiction. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Fred Bauder 22:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. As my user history suggests, I have little or no interest in contempory politics. The dispute with Cberlet is over historical matters, and the fact that I have been concentrating on evidence from the 1930s and 1940s, while he wants to discuss the 1950s is really what Cberlet and my dispute is all about. So I specifically, and pointedly deny, what the Chairman suggests, that I am involved in any manner, capacity, or "conspiracy", regarding any political views and/or ideology, other than an historic interest in the political views of other persons, who for the most part now, are dead. nobs 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 3 by Nobs01 immediate separation

1) I Motion the Committee to act immediately to separate User:Nobs01 case from others now, before any further Proposed principles or findings by other parties be posted in a case that bares principally my name. Thank you. nobs 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Propositions advanced regarding you are based on your behavior, not on any supposed connection with the other nominal defendants. Fred Bauder 04:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The findings right now under Proposed findings of fact, in a case that alleges Nobs01 and others "acting in concert", alleging "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche", reference a "Sustained personal attack". This is grossly unfair, and amounts to a disruption of the process that may warrant a counter claim by Nobs01 against Cberlet as a personal attack. I request immediate action on the question of "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche". nobs 04:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So far I have found no evidence of that. Fred Bauder 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I request the Committee to investigate whether this was a frivolous claim, and possibly an abuse of process, and User:Cberlet held to account. And I request a determination one way or the other be part of the committee's Proposed findings of fact. Thank you. nobs 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We really don't get into that sort of thing Fred Bauder 04:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If a finding on this question can not be made, than I will restate my request to separate immediately my case from the others, particularly regarding the issue of "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche"; this must be resolved. nobs 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the evidence nobs has presented, the possibility User:Cognition is another sockpuppet troll working in tandem with User:Cberlet cannot be precluded. nobs 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and I have thought of that, but it is more likely Lyndon La Rouche or a follower. Just because Chip Berlet views those tormenting him as a group does not mean they are or that we cannot sort them out according to what they have done, are doing and are likely do. In your case I highly advise removing all the negative material you have added to the talk page of the Chip Berlet article and apologize to him for putting it there at all. Right now you are "going 90 miles an hour down a dead end street." Fred Bauder 22:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I will give serious consideration to what you suggest. nobs 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 4 by Nobs01 on whether contributions to article namespace are admissible as personal attacks

1) I Motion the Committee publish a ruling whether good faith, properly referenced, independently verifiable, cited from reliable secondary source, insertions into a namespace are admissible by a Misplaced Pages user as evidence of a personal attack. nobs 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties: I ask the committe to examine carefully this series of collaborative edits between User:Willmcw and Nobs01 and determination be made of Cberlet's claims on the Evidence page that "Nobs assists Rangerdude and Cognition in posting negative material". nobs 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 5 by Nobs01 for clarification

1) Can Mr. Bauder expound more fully on this phrase, 'use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties"' at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision#External activities of users, particularly the word "tactic". More specifically, how a good faith inclusion of relevent biographical material of interest can be deemed a "tactic". nobs 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. "Smear tactic"

Comment by parties:

1. I count myself among those Mr. Laird Wilcox refered to in his Summary as one of Mr. Berlet's "imagined enemies" (Talk:Chip Berlet#3 quotes); if anything I have sympathy for Mr. Berlet who appears to be driven by a pathology to invent "enemies" were they don't exist. nobs 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 6 by Nobs01 on findings of fact

1) I Motion the Committee publish in its Proposed findings of fact that there is no evidence "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche", or whatever other relevent findings the Committee's investigation was able to uncover regarding this allegation. nobs 19:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The fact that with the exception of Hershelkrustofsky and Cognition, discrete remedies are proposed for each user serves. Fred Bauder 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Request for Findings regarding WP:OWN and other issues

I would like to request that the Arbcom consider the following issues in this case:

1) Under the principles of WP:OWN, behavior by which an editor attempts to exercise ownership or control over an article's content is considered inappropriate

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't see facts which would require mention of this principle. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Pertinent clauses include "Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders" and "if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process." Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2)User:Cberlet has attempted to assert ownership of the articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates by referring to these articles in a way that conveys an ownership claim and by attempting to exert content control over sourced critical material within them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. So far I have found suggestions by him on the talk page, which is permitted. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The edit made by Cberlet here is a prime example of this. After I added fully sourced and documented criticism of Chip Berlet by David Horowitz to the article, Cberlet posted a message seeking its removal from what he called "my page." Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions on the talk page are indeed permitted, but Cberlet did more than that - he openly claimed on the talk page that the article was "my page" and solicited other editors to delete material that was critical about him. Directly recruiting somebody else to delete valid material is little different from doing it yourself, and if done for the purpose of getting around Misplaced Pages's general discouragement of users from self-editing pages about them this would seem to violate the spirit and purpose of having this restriction. Rangerdude 07:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Let me associate myself with Rangerdude's request in this matter. Cberlet has presented evidence that editors acting in good faith, inserting content into the Chip Berlet article, was a personal attack. A formal ruling by the Committee should address this question; can the Chip Berlet article bring a RfArb and make conspiracy allegations, etc? Or can User:Cberlet's formal presentation of evidence that other useres inserted in to the Chip Berlet be regarded as a personal attack. I presume the Committee operates under a presumption of innocence, and I have declared in my opening statement that I have always maintained separation between Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet acting the capacity of a fellow Wikipedian, and the Chip Berlet Misplaced Pages article. As the evidence page here suggests, it is the Chip Berlet article making charges of conspiracy, not Mr. Chip Berlet, fellow Wikipedian. nobs 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3) User:Cberlet has engaged in personal attacks on the political affiliations, both actual and assumed, of other editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. He seems to have broken the rule against personal attacks. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Berlet's comment "So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute" is a personal attack on political affiliations under WP:NPA. While I cannot speak for the alleged LaRouche supporters, Berlet's pejorative remarks about the "small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute" were apparently directed at me. Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion to dismiss certain findings

I move to dismiss the charge located here and penalties proposed for it by Fred Bauder located here and here on account of lack of evidence. According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy#Transparency are required to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public," yet no specific evidence has been offered to date for the charge that I have "harassed" Cberlet and no specific policy violations have been alleged against me. Instead, Fred simply lists a link to an RfC I filed against Cberlet in July when Cberlet was personally attacking me in violation of WP:NPA and a link to Cberlet's evidence page statement against me, which contains little more than conspiratorial allegations and diffs showing no policy violation or impropriety on my part. It would thus seem that these charges and the proposed penalties based upon them fail to meet the transparancy requirement. At this point I do not even know specifically what I'm being accused of doing wrong here, what policies it violated, and how. I've asked Fred many times to make his charges more specific and thus clarify this matter, but those requests haven't produced much of anything substantive. In that light I'm accordingly asking the Arbcom to dismiss these charges unless they can be reformulated and fairly evaluated in compliance with the transparency requirement cited above. Thanks. Rangerdude 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary restrictions from Chip Berlet

1) Nobs01 (talk · contribs), Willmcw (talk · contribs), Cognition (talk · contribs), and Cberlet (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing Chip Berlet until a decision is reached in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This seems to be an excessive request. I don't believe I've ever made any edits to Chip Berlet at any point in its history that would merit blocking me from that article, and certainly haven't done anything in the most recent dispute aside from suggesting a way conflicting editors could reach a compromise. Furthermore, since Cberlet is strongly discouraged from directly editing Chip Berlet anyway under WP:AUTO, this injunction would not substantially affect him and therefore would only penalize the other editors. Rangerdude 07:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

   Good point. I suppose I put you in there just because you were a party. While you did edit war there in August, I've taken you out. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to this proposal, and have offerred to do so voluntarily in the namespace on several occasions; I would like to remain having some limited, not disruptive, access to the the Talk page, if the community so allows. Thank you. nobs 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Has been protected for a week due to edit warring. Would like to be able to unprotect, without the edit war starting up again. See WP:RFPP, where it was brought up (an unrelated party requesting unprotection, currently can't edit.) Dmcdevit·t 23:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I suggest this prohibition be extended to inserting references to Chip Berlet into any other article for the duration of the ban. Gamaliel 08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

   You are free to propose a more inclusive alternative, too. This is the basic injunction. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose Gamaliel censorship and anti-free speech proposal, as this may be lengthy process and litigation. nobs 18:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Overreact much? Given that this arbitration is about your actions in regards to Berent, my suggestion is just common sense. This project is not obligated to provide you with a soapbox to engage in free speech, it is here to construct an NPOV encyclopedia. Gamaliel 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"censorship" refers to properly researched materials with citations and "free speech" refers to Talk pages. nobs 02:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {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:

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:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: