< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | THF-DavidShankBone

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 24 October 2007 (→Case dismissed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:38, 24 October 2007 by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) (→Case dismissed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 8 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Case dismissed

1) As one of the principal parties has discontinued his participation on Misplaced Pages, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken, with the understanding that the matter may be reconsidered if said party should return to active editing.

Support:

Kirill 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Support closing the case without a decision FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Charles Matthews 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
jpgordon 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

This is about as clear cut an example of conflict-of-interest as there can be. I don't think we should dismiss it so readily. Raul654 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on the general issue: to encourage declarations of COI, it would be better not to pursue those who make them with full rigour. Now, the guideline doesn't encourage declarations, so in a sense we are not bound by that consideration. On the other hand, if a proposed topical ban causes someone to leave, we have made our point. The major focus should be, not on what outside interests editors have, but how they handle them. I really don't want the use of "clear cut" COI to be used as a weapon and argued against good editors, in other cases. Charles Matthews 08:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of policies and guidelines

2) Misplaced Pages users, as a condition of editing Misplaced Pages, are expected to voluntarily follow our policies and guidelines. Policing of infractions by administrators is limited to egregious violations.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Resolving disputes

3) When disputes between users arise, the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes should be followed, beginning with avoiding disputes, and talking to other users. Only as a last resort, should recourse be had to arbitration.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

4) A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the purposes of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Misplaced Pages to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict. - Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

Support:

Oppose:

Not relevant to this case Fred Bauder 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

THF

1) THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the Misplaced Pages user account of Ted Frank, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute . At AEI Frank is the Director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. His research interest is liability .

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Other accounts

2) THF began editing as "Ted Frank", but has changed his username to THF and has requested that he be referred to, on Misplaced Pages, as THF. He also uses the account Evidence storage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Focus of dispute

3) The focus of the dispute is editing of Sicko, a propagandistic documentary by Michael Moore which strongly criticizes the health care system of the United States, comparing it unfavorably to publicly funded health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Cuba.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Raul654 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC) - the focus of the dispute is the generally POV editing by THF, one symptom of which was his POV editing on Sicko. Raul654 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Raul654. Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Focus is not this. It's also not Mark's suggestion, either. The focus is as the title suggests. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

This could be clarified. Charles Matthews 11:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing by THF

4A) THF has generally followed Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, taking care to avoid conflict of interest.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Absolutely, 100% wrong. See 4B. Raul654 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not swayed. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Care taken, yes; avoidance, no. Charles Matthews 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Editing by THF

4B) THF has engaged in very problematic editing. This trend has been partially documented by smb. These edits include adding viewpoints espoused by his employer , and replacing a reliable source with his own original-research list of most profitable documentaries (which included the Jackass and Eddie Murphy stand-up as documentaries) in an effort to play-down the success of Sicko.

Support:

Oppose:

Not supported by substantial evidence Fred Bauder 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Legalistic behavior

5) An attorney, THF has often relied on written Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, citing them when engaged in disputes with other editors.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

THF claims his editing does not violate our neutrality or COI policies. That he says so does not make it true. Raul654 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really relevant to anything here. Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is ... the trouble really is that relying on close reading of policies taken as isolated documents can deceive. We could do better to explain the outer limits of behaviour within policy, but that is not the main concern. It's like a golf course: we map the fairway, but off it there are hazards. Charles Matthews 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Use of THF's real name by DavidShankBone

6) Despite repeated requests by THF, DavidShankBone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in the use of THF's name when his username would have served.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but given that THF changed username fairly recently, it's fairly difficult to take use David's use of THF's name as evidence of malice. Raul654 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (Note - I changed the section title of this FOF from "Discourtesy by David Shankbone" to "Use of THF's real name by DavidShankBone")
Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
DavidShankBone has behaved badly. Charles Matthews 11:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
DavidShankBone conduct is a problem. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

THF's conflict of interest

7) THF's problematic editing (FOF #4), combined with his employment by a political advocacy group, violated Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest.

Support:

Raul654 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's only a guideline, but I do think that in simple terms this is true. Charles Matthews 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the wrong way around. The conflict of interest is not that he edited in a problematic way whilst being a member of an advocacy group, but quite the opposite: the editing (as well as other concerns) was problematic because it amounted to a conflict of interest with duty under NPOV, commingling with his extra-wiki activities. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

THF's conflict of interest

7.1) THF has disregarded Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest, a guideline that strongly advises editors not to edit articles where they have a close personal or business connection. THF's employment by a political advocacy group makes it difficult for him to edit Misplaced Pages from a neutral point of view.

Support:

I think this better reflects how THF's edits are a problem. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

He has erred occasionally, but has generally conformed to our conflict of interest policy. Fred Bauder 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

THF advised

1) THF is advised to rely more on negotiation with other users and less on legalistic citing of policies and guidelines when disputes arise.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If a little light. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Far, far too light. See 2. Raul654 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

THF banned from politically charged topics

2) THF is banned from all politically-charged topics, including (but not limited to) those dealing with Michael Moore, health care, and global warming.

Support:

Raul654 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For the best here. Political advocacy groups should send us people with more wiki clue. Charles Matthews 16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Too strong. James F. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Too strong. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

There have been minor infractions by THF of various policies, but despite diligent investigation, no significant pattern of violation of Misplaced Pages policies has been found. Fred Bauder 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is clear evidence of POV pushing that violates our conflict-of-interest policy. Raul654 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are serious COI issues here. Kirill 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.