Revision as of 07:06, 26 August 2005

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Dispute resolution (Requests)
   Tips
   Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
   Content disputes
   Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
   Conduct disputes
   Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
   v t e

   I consider myself an 'other', because I am not now, and have never been, a party to this request for arbitration. I don't know who took the liberty of writing me in as "Party 1" in this matter, but it certainly was not me, so it amounts to a forgery. The fact is that I refuse to be a party to wasting any committee time on Banno, Ladd, and Rhobite's world-class elaborate argument _ad hominem_/personal attack/poisoning the well display here. If anything, two parties to a content dispute should, after all other avenues in the dispute-resolution process had been exhausted (and they were not so much as exhausted as skipped entirely in this case - the designated mediators were never even called in), should have agreed to JOINTLY bring a request for arbitration of the content dispute between Banno's side and my side in true, knowledge and related articles, controling the content of which by force of numbers is crucial to their obscurantist agenda of conflating scientific knowledge and religious belief.

   If this is a tribunal to test allegations that someone has committed misdemeanors, infractions violating a code, then it should go to a TRIBUNAL, not to an ARBITRATION committee.

   Arbitration and criminal trial are two entirely different things.

   Arbitration is the process by which two parties to an unresolved dispute JOINTLY submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person.

   A tribunal is a court of justice before which an accused is brought for justice after being provided with a summons citing precisely what sections of the code he is charged with violating, and specifically what particular actions of his are alleged to be violations of the code.

   There is a big difference, and I am sure that if you think it through, you will want to establish a separate tribunal where charges of misdemeanor are brought, because you don’t want to continue having the arbitration committee contaminated by having to serve as judge, jury, and executioner in quasi-criminal matters, do you, don’t you want it kept free to serve as an impartial body to which two parties to an unresolved CONTENT DISPUTE submit their differences for arbitration?

   Check with your lawyer. You cannot force someone to be a party to a request for arbitration, it is strictly voluntary. Arbitration is the process by which two parties to an unresolved dispute JOINTLY submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person. If these obscurantists, Banno, Ladd and Rhobite want to bring criminal charges against an accused before a tribunal, then they are perfectly free to go ahead and create that tribunal first, then they will be free to bring whatever charges they please, provided they have a legitimate criminal case, and not just a standard content dispute, as in this case.

   By the way, Nate Ladd says, "User:67.182.157.6 now explicitly admits that he is User:Donald Alford." That is a big fat lie, user:67.182.157.6 has never admitted any such thing, in fact he has categorically denied it, as Nate Ladd knows very well, so Nate Ladd is a big fat liar. What was actually said by user:67.182.157.6 was the following :

   The allegation in WP:Arb 67.182.157.6, "user:DotSix is user:Donald R. Alford" is correct, both of those login accounts, user:DotSix and user:Donald R. Alford, as well as user:The Donald, were created by an impostor of user:67.182.157.6, which impostor should by all rights now be blocked indefinitely, and these user pages speedily deleted because their creation was an offense against Misplaced Pages by an impostor, right?--67.182.157.6 15:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC).

   Submitted for your approval, with all due respect to the honorable arbitration committee, I remain 67.182.157.6 07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC) because I have vowed never to create a login account on principle, because as I understand it, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be all about discussion of content, not the contributors.

   Proposed temporary injunctions

   Template

   1)

   Comment by Arbitrators:

   Comment by parties:

   1. I'm not familiar with this new workshop template - if I'm not supposed to be editing this, please revert. I'd like to request a temporary injunction preventing DotSix from editing pages outside of this case. He has blanked the RFAR page , his own RFC , and talk pages of articles . He removed a section from WP:NPOV several times, and tried to create his own policy page (Misplaced Pages:Tyranny of the majority) so he could cite it in arguments. He disrupted Talk:Truth so much that it had to be protected. Rhobite 23:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

   Comment by others:

   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: