Talk:Forum (alternative dispute resolution)

section 1

I would like to collaborate with independent editors via the talk page for the article titled "National Arbitration Forum."

On April 25, 2008, I viewed the article called "National Arbitration Forum." At the top it states the author of that article may have a conflict of interest. I reviewed the Conflict of Interest rules for Wikipedia and saw the following

"Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

I was concerned that the article called National Arbitration Forum was nothing more than advertising placed by NAF, and furthermore that it was misleading. I have read the rules about using this Talk Page and, as explained below, have no suggestion on how to improve the article but think it should just be deleted. The best I think I can do is state why it should be removed, give my background, and provide some the information I know about NAF.

The original author of the page appears to be NAF itself and was back in 2007. The main concern I saw on April 25 regarded the edits that took place on April 23, 2008. Prior to April 23, 2008, lots of valid information about NAF, including the San Franciso lawsuit againsnt NAF was added to the NAF article. Then, on April 23, 2008, a user from IP Address 75.72.184.88 deleted all the new information that had been added. The same user 75.72.184.88 then added the very self-serving (and misleading) paragraph about NAF that began with the sentence “Arbitration has become the preferred way for consumers and businesses to resolve legal disputes without going to court.” So, this person’s edit was the point of contention regarding this discussion I started.

Using my limited knowledge of the internet, I was able to track the IP address of this person who deleted the information about disputes about NAF and the SF suit to a Minnesota Comcast connection, but then my lack of knowledge of what I was doing became apparent and I could get no further. The fact that it came from a Minnesota computer means it is possible that it came from NAF (headquartered in Minnesota) but not conclusive.

If you go the article as of May 1, you will find in the last week of April lots of edits were made to the article that increased its accuracy and provided much needed context. Then, all this new information was deleted on May 1 by someone using a computer with the same IP address—75.72.184.88 as the person who previously deleted information and who added the misleading information. First they deleted the new text, and then they deleted all the links except for two links that are NAF Promotional sites and one to an article called “Arbitration: A Good Deal for Consumers.”

After someone reinserted the deleted text, a bot that had previously deleted text because of some errant links then came through and did the same. On May 3, someone restored most of that information. The unknown question now is whether the people that have been using IP 75.72.184.88 will come in and delete the material again. Having to monitor for such bad faith deletions is a waste of time.

The top of the article still states that anyone with an interest should use the Talk page, rather than making edits. The people using IP address 75.72.184.88 are showing a definite bias in favor of NAF and not using the discussion page. They are violating the Wikipedia rules. So although people can go in and add accurate information about NAF, then people using 75.72.184.88 can keep up their improper conduct of deleting that information. They can also go to different computers and do the same under other IP addresses and thus mask the connection.

Given that these bad actors can simply use a different IP address, I do not know how they can be stopped. I do know that people who have a bias are to use the discussion page and try to reach consensus instead of editing the page directly. I also know that Wikipedia has a formal process to request removal of an article. If the people behind 75.72.184.88 will not stop such editing, then the only thing that Wikipedia can do is to remove the article.

I am not making edits myself because I am a lawyer who has been involved in several arbitrations with different arbitration providers including some with NAF. I have read many of the NAF's different sets of Rules for arbitration, have spoken directly with the NAF about their methods, and have taken the deposition of a law firm that annually does thousands of arbitrations with NAF. I have no financial interest in NAF nor in any business adverse to NAF nor am I connected to anyone who does. The evidence I have accumulated shows that NAF regularly misrepresents to people how it will conduct arbitrations. It makes these misrepresentations to increase its own profits. Because of these misrepresentations, it is earning money unlawfully. Thus, I do have a personal opinion that it should be stopped.

The City and County of San Francisco is attempting to protect its citizens from NAF and has filed a lawsuit against it. This lawsuit is a matter of public record and has been written about in various publications. For a City Attorney to sue an arbitration provider is highly unusual. Their lawsuit cites specific instances of misconduct by NAF that favored corporations. I also know that in many places on the web, including the website for Public Justice, hundreds of pages of documents that show favoritism to corporations are collected.

IP Address 75.72.184.88 previously tried to insert the following misleading paragraph.

"Arbitration has become the preferred way for consumers and businesses to resolve legal disputes without going to court. Before the advent of modern arbitration, consumers and businesses were often locked out of our court system because of an inability to find affordable legal representation for smaller value disputes. In contrast, the simplicity and efficiency of arbitration provides all parties with fair and affordable access to civil justice. The benefits of arbitration have made it a vital element of the modern civil justice system."

If this paragraph were to apply to NAF (by substituting in "a NAF arbitration" for the word arbitration)" then based on the evidence I have seen (and by evidence I mean evidence that meets the Federal Rules of Evidence and would be admissible in Court, not hearsay, not suppositions, and not documents of questionable validity) the following would be more accurate.

"A NAF Arbitration has become a preferred way for businesses to keep their wrongdoing from being revealed in court. Before the advent of NAF arbitration, when consumers could obtain counsel then the wrongdoing of businesses were regularly exposed in our court system. As the modern class action device allowed for legal representation for smaller value disputes, institutional practices were being effectively challenged. In response, major corporations like credit card companies, banks, car manufacturers are now requiring American citizens to give up their Constitutional rights to bring disputes into the open court system. Thus, these companies want to make money in America and from Americans while not being subject to the openness of the American court system. NAF works directly with these companies to make this process of denying American citizens their rights simple and efficient. As a result, the companies no longer have the same incentive to avoid wrongful or harmful practices. A NAF arbitration provides the companies with a biased forum and NAF regularly allows these companies to violate NAF Rules which it enforces in a draconian way on consumers. Consequently, NAF is not fair and does not create civil justice. NAF's improper and unlawful alliance with these corporations is a vital element of NAF's profit-making system such that NAF is properly viewed as an institution organized to make money through illegal means."

The above paragraph may sound biased, but it is based on the evidence I have seen. For instance, through established practices, NAF will allow corporate claimants to communicate information to arbitrators without that information being communicated to the consumer-respondent. If the consumer-respondent sends something to NAF that does not prove that it was sent to the corporate-claimant, NAF will reject it. That is merely one example.

The people using IP address 75.72.184.88 have shown their disregard of Wikipedia's rules. They have refused to reveal whether they have a connection with NAF. The article should simply be deleted. 71.63.35.207 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)71.63.35.207 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential bias by authors - please delete article

This article reads more like a promotional advertisement for NAF, rather than a clear, unbiased entry showing the potential disadvantages as well as potential advantages. The author should reveal their connections to NAF so that Wikipedia and its readers can ascertain whether there is a bias to this article. If the author refuses to do so, or if bias is shown, the article should immediately be removed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.209.70 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

author possible bias must be revealed or this article should be deleted

I am an attorney who has represented individual consumers in disputes before the National Arbitration Forum. The tone and content of this article are consistent with those of people who are promoting the NAF as an arbitration provider. The author needs to reveal any possible connection with the NAF or this article should be deleted. 69.58.66.62 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

author needs to reveal possible bias or article should be deleted

I am a consumer protection attorney. Arbitration is one of the worst things to happen to a consumer, even if NAF is the forum. Consumers, buying an automobile for example, are never told that they are giving up their rights to a trial for dealer fraud, ect. In addition, the fees just to file for arbitration usually prevent a consumer from being heard at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.0.74 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Author needs to reveal bias or article should be deleted

The National Arbitration Forum author must reveal and possible connection with the Forum. If the author refuses, the article should be deleted as it is presenting biased information of which the general public would have no way of knowing without such disclosure.

author needs to reveal possible bias or article should be deleted

The author of the NAF article should reveal any possible connection with NAF. If the author will not do this, then the article should be deleted.

Suspect Biased Author - This article should be deleted

The author of the NAF article should reveal any possible connection with NAF. If the author will not do this, the article should be deleted 216.78.223.141 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reveal Bias or Delete

I am a consumer attorney and I believe that anyone who writes about the NAF and also has a connection to it should reveal that connection using specifics rather than merely stating a possible bias. Otherwise the article should be deleted. 216.68.141.50 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

author needs to reveal association/connection to NAF or delete article

This article appears to be an advertisement for NAF. It is not balanced and contains information that I believe is inaccurate, such as arbitration is the preferred method of conflict resolution among consumers.Fosterhokamp (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

author needs to reveal possible bias or article should be deleted

The author of the article on National Arbitration Forum should reveal any possible connection with NAF. If the author will not do this, the article should be deleted. 155.212.142.189 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

possible bias of author

Is the author conected to NAF? If so it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.176.58 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Author needs to reveal possible bias or this article should be deleted.

The author of the NAF article should reveal any possible connection with NAF. If the author will not do this, the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.71.177 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we find out the possible connection between author and NAF?

I don't usually comment on Wikipedia articles, but this seems pretty straightforward. How do we find out the possible connection between the author of the article and NAF? Surely the identity of the author can be tracked and disclosed by Wikipedia even if the author will not reveal it.

I agree that if the author will not reveal it, then the article should be removed. I am concerned that the author may then try again in the future. I would like to be sure such entries are somehow flagged.

In the interests of such disclosure, I am the author of the original text of the first posting to the talk back section, but do not know how to make it appear that way.

72.66.226.136 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 71.63.35.207 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is not the preferred method for consumers to resolve their disputes

This article is full of misrepresentations. Many times, a consumer purchases an item (car, mobile home, etc.) only to discover after the fact that the fine print on the back of the sales contract (or the language of the warranty which isn't even presented at the time of the sale) contains a provision purporting to require the consumer to arbitrate his or her dispute. Many of these provisions contain significant limitations on damages, the availability of attorney fees for the prevailing consumer, discovery of relevant information, and the ability to pursue of class action, etc. Arbitration, of course, can be a wonderful thing if two parties knowingly and voluntarily AGREE to waive their right to a jury trial. However, in the consumer marketplace, such arbitration clauses are all too often simply inserted in transaction documents by businesses without any disclosure or explanation to the consumer. The sole reason for this is to obtain a more favorable forum and to limit their exposure for fraud, deceptive acts and other unlawful conduct. In this context, there is no voluntary "agreement" on the part of the consumer to arbitrate! This article should be deleted or severely edited because it is completely one-sided and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.100.73 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote this material

Businesses are strong proponents of arbitration because they get better treatment in front of mainly pro-business arbitrators. The rules are in their favor and there is basically no appeal. To say that arbitration gives consumers more access to justice is just not true. Abritration agreements are not uniform. Some require consumers to pay huge fees or be responsible for huge fees if they lose. Many consumers do not realize they are covered by an arbitration agreement until they have a dispute with their bank, a car dealer or their credit card company. These agreements are hidden from consumers or lightly glossed over by a fast talking salesman. By the time a trusting consumer finds out what is happening, it is too late. The source of the entry should be requested to disclose his relationship to NAF. It is clear that a consumer would not put up this entry. Competitors would not likely put it up either. Most other businesses could care less about NAF so it must be someone with some sort of association with NAF. That, in and of itself, makes the entry suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.37.26 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Author needs to reveal possible bias or article should be deleted

The author of the NAF article should reveal any possible connection with NAF. If the author will not do this, the article should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.218.7 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

author needs to reveal possible bias or article should be deleted

The author needs to reveal his/her connection to NAF or the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marielle2 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion called for unless author's bias set forth

The NAF article author should state what bias s/he has; otherwise, the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.71.177 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced/COI tags

I don't understand why a COI tag is on the article unless the editor who worked on it works for Public Citizen, as the article reads like one of their press releases. Completely one-sided, and doesn't even pretend to neutrality, much less include the other side of the story.[1][2][3] THF (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of COI tags; no information tagged as not accurate so no reason for this to be marked inaccurate

Responding to the query about why this page was marked with COI tags, the history of the edits on this page needs to be considered. The initial comment on this talk page under the heading Section 1 is mine. That comment discusses some of the history up to that point and explains why the page seemed to merely be an advertising piece by NAF. I recommended that it be removed because when accurate changes were made to it, someone was deleting them. An ongoing controversy exists about the legitimacy of NAF as a neutral provider for dispute resolution in the context of corporations using mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their form contracts with American citizens. The comment that this appears now to be a press release by Public Citizen is not supported by an reference to any inaccurate information, nor to any improper deletions. Unless some information can be identified as disputed, I recommend that the disputed tags be deleted. 96.239.179.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Public Citizen study section is a likely copyvio of a Public Citizen press release

See the Duplicate Detector report. The copyvio appears to have been introduced in this edit from April 2008 (see the Duplicate Detector report). I will be removing the section shortly pending cleanup. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I also removed a close paraphrase of a Wall Street Journal blog article introduced by the same IP address. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you failed to edit Wikipedia:Copyright_problems as you were instructed to. You didn't make the required edits at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013_December_3, but I suppose the edit to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013_December_2 is pretty adequate. And you did provide some notification to the user. Your edits seemed (note: past tense) politically motivated at first glance.--Elvey (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Massive deletion of relevant references

I see no reason for [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Arbitration_Forum&diff=585383689&oldid=584955989 this] Massive deletion of the bulk of the article's relevant references. There's no copyvio issue, right? Plesae explain.--Elvey (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy, so I couldn't respond until now. No, there is no copyvio problem. I think ten links is excessive and should be discussed: some (like the WSJ blog) should be used as references and incorporated into the article, others are dead links and need to be replaced with working versions, and some may violate WP:ELNO #2. I can discuss each individually later. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free. Editors should be aware that our policy is that dead links should NOT be removed simply because they're dead!!--Elvey (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=2521 and others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to better incorporate rebuttals to Public Citizen's "The Arbitration Trap". Giving "The Arbitration Trap" its own section without any inline rebuttals may violate WP:NPOV. I will put this task on my list. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forum (alternative dispute resolution). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201173219/http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=178 to http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=178

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)