This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 5 September 2007 (→THF complained about "attack site"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:16, 5 September 2007 by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) (→THF complained about "attack site")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- "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 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)
- Comment by others:
- Perhaps if you added "No undue reverence, however, should be held for the opinions of experts in one subject when they edit other subjects in which they have no such expertise." It's an important balance and one which applies in this case. Ossified 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Conflict of interest
4) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a behavioral guideline, advises editors to use caution when editing subjects regarding which they have a personal or professional interest.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed, the general rule. Fred Bauder 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Activist editing
5) Editors at Misplaced Pages are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed. Kirill 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I support Cberlet's position. He is an activist, just as THF is. However, with occasional lapses, he has edited responsibly. THF's assertion that Cberlet is allowed to make POV edits here while THF is harassed and restricted bites. If that is the case, it needs to change. Fred Bauder 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Kirill 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- The question is one of balance. If an article is POV and an editor with an activist agenda simply efforts to balance the POV out, then I think that is warranted. However, if an editor with an activist agenda seeks to replace one POV with their own, then it is not "possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda." I am not familiar with Cberlet or his edits, but in the case of THF, he was doing what I describe above, replacing one POV with his own. See my (incomplete) evidence, e.g. Robert Bork (removing pertinent information, changing an NPOV definition to a POV one), Jim Hood (edit-warring in the phrasing "wealthy trial lawyers" and directing readers to his self-authored criticism) and American Bar Association (removing the only balancing statement over judicial ratings, effort to have their magazine deleted, while simultaneously writing unsourced articles to propaganda and similarly notable magazine in whihc he has a COI) edits. --David Shankbone 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- This proposal makes a false assumption. I wear several hats: an employed researcher, a freelance writer, and an activist. When I write freelance for print encyclopedias (and I have contributed to some half dozen), it is assumed that I will adopt the stance of what is essentially NPOV. What matters here is whether or not, over time, a Wiki editor is able to work collaboratively and craft fair and accurate entry text that is is NPOV. To assume an activist cannot achieve NPOV text editing is unfair and prejudicial.--Cberlet 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Cberlet. Where an article is currently POV-skewed against an activist's agenda, then correcting that is manifestly working towards NPOV and pursuing an activist agenda. Care should be taken by people in such circumstances, but that's about it. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think one standard to judge this by is whether one activist replaces one POV with their own POV, as opposed to simply "explaining the other side." --David Shankbone 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That may be true in individual cases, but the general principle as given doesn't seem to be valid, is the point people are making. Just to keep on-topic, do you claim that the principle as given is valid? SamBC(talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think one standard to judge this by is whether one activist replaces one POV with their own POV, as opposed to simply "explaining the other side." --David Shankbone 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Cberlet. Where an article is currently POV-skewed against an activist's agenda, then correcting that is manifestly working towards NPOV and pursuing an activist agenda. Care should be taken by people in such circumstances, but that's about it. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal makes a false assumption. I wear several hats: an employed researcher, a freelance writer, and an activist. When I write freelance for print encyclopedias (and I have contributed to some half dozen), it is assumed that I will adopt the stance of what is essentially NPOV. What matters here is whether or not, over time, a Wiki editor is able to work collaboratively and craft fair and accurate entry text that is is NPOV. To assume an activist cannot achieve NPOV text editing is unfair and prejudicial.--Cberlet 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Political orientation is immaterial
6) Conflicts of interest, POV-pushing, and activist editing are no more or less acceptable from one political view than another.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Please treat this as it's written, or propose an edit, rather than saying "so neonazi editors are no worse than laissez-faire economics supports?". SamBC(talk) 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
- In this case he can be expected to be sensitive to point of view. Fred Bauder 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- True. Especially when it involves experts editing in their field of expertise. --David Shankbone 23:27, 4 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)
- 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)
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)
- Question Fred Bauder 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- The characterization should be a fair one. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting self-identifies as a "progressive group" and as a "national media watch group". The term "watchdog" may have connotations that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The phrase "progressive media watch group" is ambiguous: is the group progressive, or is it the progressive media that they are watching? A neutral, fair, accurate construction would be something along the lines of "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." or "The progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." Beyond that, I disagree with Fred Bauder's assertion that "progressive" is a euphemism for "radical" (except perhaps on certain talk radio programs). The term more accurately describes left-leaning people who see certain distinctions between their own political beliefs and those who self-describe as liberals. Neither "progressive" nor "liberal" is synonymous with "far left" or "radical", except to the extent that there has been a concerted effort by some on the right to demonize both words equally. Ossified 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like double talk to me. Fred Bauder 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not challenging, just asking, in what way (does it sound like double talk)? SamBC(talk) 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like double talk to me. Fred Bauder 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The characterization should be a fair one. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting self-identifies as a "progressive group" and as a "national media watch group". The term "watchdog" may have connotations that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The phrase "progressive media watch group" is ambiguous: is the group progressive, or is it the progressive media that they are watching? A neutral, fair, accurate construction would be something along the lines of "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." or "The progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." Beyond that, I disagree with Fred Bauder's assertion that "progressive" is a euphemism for "radical" (except perhaps on certain talk radio programs). The term more accurately describes left-leaning people who see certain distinctions between their own political beliefs and those who self-describe as liberals. Neither "progressive" nor "liberal" is synonymous with "far left" or "radical", except to the extent that there has been a concerted effort by some on the right to demonize both words equally. Ossified 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
- 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)
- He, might be, but let's see. I have noticed him in. Fred Bauder 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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:
- No, before a site would qualify as an attack site, the nastiness would have to be several orders of magnitude greater. Fred Bauder 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --David Shankbone 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Let's leave BADSITES out of this. This proposed policy is for the community to accept or (probably) reject on its merits. This whole edit war is incidental to any behavior of the parties. If it's really necessary to decide this issue, there's at least a consensus that it was not an attack page when the link to edit THF's user page was removed. No such consensus existed for the prior version you point to. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think on its face it was not a question that it was an attack site and it is very pertinent to the issue at hand. I do not think it was an attack site even with the links present. I am happy to re-phrase the question to "This screenshot did not qualify MichaelMoore.com as an attack site regardless of whether there were links to edit Misplaced Pages or not." The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to edit the pages; having someone direct others to do so to communicate with an editor or to edit pages about one's own work did not qualify it as an attack site, regardless. --David Shankbone 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That may be so, but many editors and at least one admin disagree in the discussion cited above. There does not seem to be consensus that it is or is not an attack site. There is not even consensus that "attack sites" are recognized by policy. If ArbCom is really interested in this issue, those who edit warred over these links here and elsewhere should be made parties to proceedings, but I think there is no need to carve new BADSITES-related policy to decide this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) See my new proposal below. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly think the issue should be addressed by ArbCom, because THF said it was an attack site and said he wanted it de-linked. THF's issue with MichaelMoore.com consumed the ANI board for days. --David Shankbone 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That may be so, but many editors and at least one admin disagree in the discussion cited above. There does not seem to be consensus that it is or is not an attack site. There is not even consensus that "attack sites" are recognized by policy. If ArbCom is really interested in this issue, those who edit warred over these links here and elsewhere should be made parties to proceedings, but I think there is no need to carve new BADSITES-related policy to decide this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) See my new proposal below. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think on its face it was not a question that it was an attack site and it is very pertinent to the issue at hand. I do not think it was an attack site even with the links present. I am happy to re-phrase the question to "This screenshot did not qualify MichaelMoore.com as an attack site regardless of whether there were links to edit Misplaced Pages or not." The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to edit the pages; having someone direct others to do so to communicate with an editor or to edit pages about one's own work did not qualify it as an attack site, regardless. --David Shankbone 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's leave BADSITES out of this. This proposed policy is for the community to accept or (probably) reject on its merits. This whole edit war is incidental to any behavior of the parties. If it's really necessary to decide this issue, there's at least a consensus that it was not an attack page when the link to edit THF's user page was removed. No such consensus existed for the prior version you point to. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)I too believe this is critical to this case because the violation of WP:HARASS in the posting then re-posting then edit warring to keep on talk space the link to MM.com was a crucial point in the interreactions of THF and David and others (including me as i edit warred to enforce WP:HARASS). This screenshot clearly has both the users legal name and Username, and this is a Privacy violation as defined in WP:HARASS. Thus i edit warred to enforce the word MUST in this quote from WP:HARASS. "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking." Ive added the bolding. I believe that this arbcom must rule some way on this central issue, it may be that you think i was wrong or david or both of us or none but some statement needs to be made about these events. 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe ArbCom should rule, but they should do so in a separate action. The editors lined up in this dispute are the same as those lined up in other disputes. As it is, even the michaelmoore.com edit war was only tangentially related to THF based on an odd comment he made and immediately clarified that he simply wanted the standard treatment (unfortunately, the standard treatment turned out to be a pan-project edit war). I hope that this arbitration remains a case focused on COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no time like the present. This, to me, is a major issue in this case and deserves a ruling here and now. This relates to COI since THF had an outside public dispute with Michael Moore, that Moore acknowledged on his website. THF said it was an attack site and said he wanted it de-linked. I've already provided the diffs for that. He brought a public battle to Misplaced Pages. --David Shankbone 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, he asked what the standard procedure was, unless one assumes bad faith—reading his question mark as a battle cry. At any rate, this absurd war was driven by several other parties who have also driven other wars. It's these parties who should be the subject of their own arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not fall on the "assume good faith" argument to get around the fact that THF said what he said and said what he wanted, just because he backtracks now. It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War; combined with his attack piece he wrote on Moore, and his edit-warring with POV tags, he has a clear COI and should not bring his public battle with Moore to Misplaced Pages. I think the issue is clear: if you are working on something on the outside, don't bring it inside - stay away from those articles. And as THF admitted, "I've since written an article about the movie, and have another one in the hopper; since the article has been published, I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI." But he didn't stop - that was August 23 he wrote that, and one only need to look at the Sicko history to see his substantive edits, including the criticism of the WHO (not Sicko) and adding POV tags to the article after he himself said he had an arguable COI. --David Shankbone 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- "It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War" does not logically follow from his admission of a potential COI with regards to his published article. The war was instigated by the same parties who have fought other wars and who will continue to fight until ArbCom rules on them. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- THF raised the issue, argued for de-linking, and he was the one who brought up SlimVirgin. Here's a great opportunity to rule on the issue, since neither principal in this dispute, THF and David Shankbone, are the parties you mention but were swept up in the same problem: THF claiming MichaelMoore.com is an attack site requiring de-linking, and DSB finding this an abusive application of policy. Since the issue is not limited to a small group of people, but spreads to other long-standing editors, it's clearly a problem that needs clarification. --David Shankbone 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- "It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War" does not logically follow from his admission of a potential COI with regards to his published article. The war was instigated by the same parties who have fought other wars and who will continue to fight until ArbCom rules on them. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not fall on the "assume good faith" argument to get around the fact that THF said what he said and said what he wanted, just because he backtracks now. It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War; combined with his attack piece he wrote on Moore, and his edit-warring with POV tags, he has a clear COI and should not bring his public battle with Moore to Misplaced Pages. I think the issue is clear: if you are working on something on the outside, don't bring it inside - stay away from those articles. And as THF admitted, "I've since written an article about the movie, and have another one in the hopper; since the article has been published, I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI." But he didn't stop - that was August 23 he wrote that, and one only need to look at the Sicko history to see his substantive edits, including the criticism of the WHO (not Sicko) and adding POV tags to the article after he himself said he had an arguable COI. --David Shankbone 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, he asked what the standard procedure was, unless one assumes bad faith—reading his question mark as a battle cry. At any rate, this absurd war was driven by several other parties who have also driven other wars. It's these parties who should be the subject of their own arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no time like the present. This, to me, is a major issue in this case and deserves a ruling here and now. This relates to COI since THF had an outside public dispute with Michael Moore, that Moore acknowledged on his website. THF said it was an attack site and said he wanted it de-linked. I've already provided the diffs for that. He brought a public battle to Misplaced Pages. --David Shankbone 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe ArbCom should rule, but they should do so in a separate action. The editors lined up in this dispute are the same as those lined up in other disputes. As it is, even the michaelmoore.com edit war was only tangentially related to THF based on an odd comment he made and immediately clarified that he simply wanted the standard treatment (unfortunately, the standard treatment turned out to be a pan-project edit war). I hope that this arbitration remains a case focused on COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
7b) This screenshot of MichaelMoore.com does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Question: since you are proposing this question, you concede that the words "CLICK here to edit Ted Frank's Misplaced Pages page" (and the highlight of those words to show it provided a link to edit) does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked? Because then your 7b as you propose it is correct in my opinion. --David Shankbone 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by others:
- Proposed. This way ArbCom avoids the use of "attack sites" altogether, avoiding a tacit endorsement of BADSITES. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This screenshot clearly has both the users legal name and Username, and this is a Privacy violation as defined in WP:HARASS as "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment" and as such is harassment and MUST be removed. 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. This way ArbCom avoids the use of "attack sites" altogether, avoiding a tacit endorsement of BADSITES. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
7c) This screenshot of MichaelMoore.com--even if it contained links to edit THF's or Sicko's pages--does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked or that it constituted an "attack site".
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --David Shankbone 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
8) Sicko World Health Organization edit RFC
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
THF edited COI guidelines during a COI involving himself
8) THF edited the COI guidelines while he himself was the subject of a COI/N.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --David Shankbone 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I'm not certain that this is relevant - those edits do not appear to be in any way controversial, don't actually change anything, and merely clarify what's already said. The nutshell was undergoing a lot of editing around that time. SamBC(talk) 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The fact is raised in my defense. To edit COI guidelines in your favor while you yourself are the subject of a COIN is not good faith. What he did is not actionable, but it serves to establish that THF's behavior during disputes was less than optimal. His complaints of harassment are met with how he conducted himself when other editors attempted to have good faith assessments of his edits and proposed edits of articles. When one is the subject of a COIN, it is not the time to be editing the guidelines. There's plenty of other people and time for that. It served to undermine his good faith, which in the words of Amarakov, "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." Since my own behavior is in question here, I posit that actions such as these gave cause for me to evaluate THF's edits more closely. --David Shankbone 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that this is relevant - those edits do not appear to be in any way controversial, don't actually change anything, and merely clarify what's already said. The nutshell was undergoing a lot of editing around that time. SamBC(talk) 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
THF made Sicko edits after saying to do so would be a case for COI
8) After THF said on August 23, "I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI", he made substantive edits to the main page , , ,
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed --David Shankbone 12:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Of the 4 "substantive edits" given, the first and third are merely tagging, which doesn't seem to be substantive. The fourth is adding an external link. The second is substantive, but is claimed to be based on discussion on the talk page - the discussion is question involved suggesting the addition and waiting for objections. I would say, in that case, that THF should have waiting longer than he did before adding it to the article (about 10 hours). However, I do not believe that those 4 diffs actually support the proposed finding of fact. SamBC(talk) 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Tagging an article as "POV" is very substantive, and calls the entire article in question to the reader - It's difficult to make a more substantive edit than to do that. THF would raise an issue on the Talk page and then make the change, before discussion took place. Had he not made the substantive change, he would have seen editors had problems with this, myself included. For someone with an admitted COI, you are right, he should have waited longer than 10 hours. The fourth edit is an external link that was removed for for a 9 minute home-made infomercial, Uninsured in America, that was not worthy to have its own article (THF created it). THF then said it was a "compromise" to insert the see also to Stuart Browning, where the original article had been moved. That wasn't a particularly good faith edit summary, nor a compromise, and someone with a stated COI should not have done it. The links I provide support the fact very well. --David Shankbone 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of the 4 "substantive edits" given, the first and third are merely tagging, which doesn't seem to be substantive. The fourth is adding an external link. The second is substantive, but is claimed to be based on discussion on the talk page - the discussion is question involved suggesting the addition and waiting for objections. I would say, in that case, that THF should have waiting longer than he did before adding it to the article (about 10 hours). However, I do not believe that those 4 diffs actually support the proposed finding of fact. SamBC(talk) 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Attack site policy
8) Misplaced Pages has no attack site policy except Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, a guideline. As currently stated there, the guideline somewhat exaggerates and misstates the ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. It is intended to apply only to serious cases of systemic harassment. It is not easy to understand or apply. Whether it applies to a particular site is a matter of informed judgment.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
THF was harassed by an external website
8) THF was targeted for attention by the Michael Moore's website, see screenshot. The page included links to edit his user page as well as links to edit Sicko.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Question: Does attention = harassment? --David Shankbone 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- When there are links to edit his user page on Misplaced Pages, yes. Fred Bauder 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Does attention = harassment? --David Shankbone 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Note that the link was to edit his user page. The article on him did not yet exist. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was not sure, I went off the screenshot. Fred Bauder 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the link was to edit his user page. The article on him did not yet exist. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
THF complained about "attack site"
8) THF made a complaint about being harassed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents and asked about the "standard procedure for delinking attack sites". . The archived discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Attack_site.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This was just a newbie mistake. He could not be expected to appreciate the level of depravity the policy applies to. Fred Bauder 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- THF had been on Misplaced Pages for a year, had made 7,000 edits to 2,500 articles (his own words), ceaselessly wikilinked to policies and guidelines, edited guidelines, and in his request to "de-link" an "attack site", referenced the SlimVirgin episode. That's a "newbie" mistake? --David Shankbone 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and he's not the only experienced editor who misunderstands this policy, MONGO, himself, is just one example. Michael Moore, whatever his defects, has a moral compass. He is also probably not a Misplaced Pages editor. This is quite different from a site devoted to destructive material harmful to Misplaced Pages. Fred Bauder 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- THF had been on Misplaced Pages for a year, had made 7,000 edits to 2,500 articles (his own words), ceaselessly wikilinked to policies and guidelines, edited guidelines, and in his request to "de-link" an "attack site", referenced the SlimVirgin episode. That's a "newbie" mistake? --David Shankbone 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This was just a newbie mistake. He could not be expected to appreciate the level of depravity the policy applies to. Fred Bauder 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed Fred Bauder 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- I disagree with this interpretation. --David Shankbone 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- 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: