Revision as of 04:31, 23 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:

Comment by parties:

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)

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)

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary restrictions from Chip Berlet

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

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: