Revision as of 03:50, 5 September 2007

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 may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

No use of sock puppets during arbitration

1) I make a motion that all involved parties edit under the User name that is named during arbitration proceedings, and the use of sock puppets barred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no basis for this motion. (other than to rattle his chain) Fred Bauder 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Motioned. --David Shankbone 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I feel the issue is one of good faith. I see no reason for THF to use a sock puppet during arbitration; it also may confuse other parties who comment as to who is who when there is a sock puppet in use. The primary parties should edit as the primary parties, and there is little reason--if any--for them not to do so. It makes it a lot easier for everyone involved to follow who is saying what. --David Shankbone 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe this is fully understood, and editors have been banned in the past for using abusive sockpuppets to edit arbitration pages. A separate motion should not be required. Newyorkbrad 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet in question, THF's Evidence storage (talk · contribs), has not been used abusively as far as I can tell. Picaroon (t) 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I know the context, I agree with Fred's comment above. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

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

Proposed principles

Comment on contributions, not contributors

1) Except where a clear pattern emerges, an editor's work on wikipedia is more important than their identity, and each contributions should be (initially) taken on its own merits, without reference to the contributor or their other contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nobody could possibly follow this principle. Every editor has their karma. Fred Bauder 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is correct. THF had a long editing history on Sicko where nobody made any issue of his AEI status, even though it was proudly displayed on his User page. It was only when he tried to insert his own article into Sicko that it--correctly--became an issue. It was only on August 9th that because User:THF, 2/3rds of the way through the issue over his trying to insert into Sicko work he wrote. Then became even though the issue over that article was still in process. --David Shankbone 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by SamBC(talk) 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to assert that editors may never comment regarding another editor or even reference their other contributions. Personal comments should be kept to a minimum, but they may be relevant far before "a clear pattern emerges". --Iamunknown 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As Fred Bauder says, nobody is going to be able to follow this. If I see someone being unreasonable in one case, then I'm going to start evaluate their edits more closely than I would someone else's, even if no clear pattern has emerged. Of course, personal attacks are still bad, but this is worded much too broadly for a simple NPA principle. -Amarkov moo! 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Respecting expertise

2) It is appropriate to utilize the expertise of any expert who edits Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This principle is correct. But if I am an expert in legal liability, that expertise does not mean I am an expert in film; nor does it mean I am an expert on healthcare policy. Expertise is subject-specific. To hold one's self out as a "controversial expert" in an area where they are not an expert is, in principle, fallacious. So I think "When an expert edits Misplaced Pages in their field of expertise, it is appropriate to utilize that expertise." rings more true. --David Shankbone 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think his expertise could be characterized as lying in the area of political advocacy, which Sicko is an example of. Fred Bauder 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Political advocacy" isn't particularly a field, and if it is, the bar would be pretty amorphous for who qualifies as an expert. Experts become political advocates in their fields of expertise, which is what THF has become with liability. I was an Associate Chairman of the Georgia Federation of Teenage Republicans and youth coordinator for Newt Gingrich's 1990 re-election campaign, and I have been involved with politics since. I was a poll monitor in Cleveland during the last election, and there are few political issues I am not well-versed in. I went to a top law school and studied the ins and outs of our political and legal system, as well as legal philosophy. Sicko is a documentary film advocating for a change in healthcare policy. THF is an expert in neither of these areas; nor am I. My only point: he is not a controversial expert on these topics. Thus, he is not a "controversial expert" able to decide what qualifies as a documentary, nor does he have any particular expertise (beyond perhaps being well-versed) on national healthcare policy. --David Shankbone 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my earlier comment, mainly because I was confused as to how these principles operate; I do not believe this principle applies in this case. THF's edits to tort and liability-related articles are not in question here; that is his area of expertise. --David Shankbone 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

3) While users with outside interest in a subject should try to follow the recommendations given in the conflict of interest guideline, they are not prohibited from editing articles relating to their subject of interest. Occasional mistakes are tolerated as they are for any editor, so long as there is no pattern of policy violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The point, essentially, is that THF should not be sanctioned more harshly for any bad edits he may have made than someone else would be. -Amarkov moo! 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

THF

1) THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is known to be a fellow at a prominent conservative think tank.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Learning from experts

2) Experts may from time to time edit Misplaced Pages. When they do, their interaction with our policies and practices provides a valuable opportunity to interpret and refine those policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

True. Especially when it involves experts editing in their field of expertise. --David Shankbone 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case he can be expected to be sensitive to point of view. Fred Bauder 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, THF is not an expert. His expertise is in legal liability, not in film or healthcare policy. --David Shankbone 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ryan Delaney

3) Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested a citation for a statement that already had a valid citation (.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems a somewhat odd place to begin analyzing the case. Ryan may not have noticed that the cited source, whose citation footnote appeared after the following sentence, covered both sentences. In any event, this incident by itself appears trivial, and Ryan Delaney is not a party to the case. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was in evidence, and while your explanation is likely the cause, it happens to have been the first diff I looked at. Fred Bauder 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Characterization

4) This edit, considered together with its comment, poses interesting questions: is it appropriate to so identify that organization, and if the brief characterization was POV, was its removal appropriate?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question Fred Bauder 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting characterizes the organization as "progressive", a euphemism for left wing or radical. Perhaps "progressive media watchdog organization" would have served. Fred Bauder 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence storage

5) Evidence storage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an alternate account of THF. He has collected evidence regarding this matter at User talk:Evidence storage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted Fred Bauder 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

THF was the target of harassment

6) THF was harassed by Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , , , .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Although I disagree with these edits, I do not see how they are relevant. --David Shankbone 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Factually true, but unless Wikidea is going to be added as a party, irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

MichaelMoore.com is not an attack site

7) This screenshot did not qualify MichaelMoore.com as an attack site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --David Shankbone 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

8) {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:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {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:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {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:

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: