Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Proposed decision

Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (talk) & AlexandrDmitri (talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the Committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

Casliber
Cool Hand Luke
Coren
Jclemens
Kirill Lokshin
Mailer diablo
Newyorkbrad
Risker
Roger Davies
Shell Kinney
SirFozzie

Inactive:

Note: The new arbitrators who took office on January 1 will be initially listed as inactive on cases already pending at that time, but may move to active status on any case either by declaring that they will be active on the case or by voting on it.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
David Fuchs
Elen of the Roads
John Vandenberg
Xeno

Recused

Iridescent
PhilKnight

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Late evidence re JJB

I'm sorry this comes quite late, and it may perhaps seem like a nasty thing to do at this stage, but seeing that an alternative between a full ban and a topic ban for JJB is currently on the table, I think the arbitrators might still want to take into account what I submitted here [1]. Sorry I can't condense it into more handy diffs because I've been a total outsider to all this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

"Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic." (PP3)

Hmm. If I'm a member of the board of directors of Exxon Corporation, I presumptively have a COI regarding issues relating to CO2 emissions, for example. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's right. The presumption isn't valid to act upon unless supported by reliable sources, in which case there wouldn't be a COI merely by being part of a group anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Coren; it takes more than membership. It would, however, create a COI with respect to Exxon. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]