Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 15 February 2008

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Initiated by cfrito (talk) at 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• cfrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Marvin Shilmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation talk page
• Mediation sandbox page

Statement by cfrito

There exists an ongoing and increasingly acrimonious debate over certain content for the NWT article. At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition. The publisher has reported several times since its initial publication that these names are confidential at the behest of the translators themselves, even after their deaths. Two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses of some importance published similar but different lists after they left the JW organization and began a career of anti-writing. Many other anti-writers have perpetuated these lists. There is no documentation other than the representation of these two anti-writers, and what they wrote was from recollections and published in their own memoirs. The apparent relevance to the Article is that critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds. Thus the accuracy of the names as presented is key to being relevant to the Article. There is sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source material since it tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. Editor Marvin_Shilmer has commenced a battle of discrediting me and others editors which sets the stage for increasing acrimony. Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose him. When ultimately my original edits were acknowledged positively by the mediators, Shilmer took credit. I exposed the issue. It should be noted that the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin_Shilmer. I respectfully request that a review of the use these alleged translators' names use in the article be examined along with how they are presented, and also the actions of editor Marvin_Shilmer in dealing with the issues I raised.

Edited to add: I will not spend a lot of time defending matters. I asked for arbitration, not so much for content, but on the unreliably of two underlying primary sources and of Shilmer's tendency to revert edits by others despite being silent when the matters were offered for discussion on the Talk pages. Perhaps this was misplaced. While I still oppose the inclusion of these names on the source reliability issue, I have agreed to a compromise because it seems like it the list be well cautioned. I believe that in an objective review of the matter now under consideration, the common thread will be obvious enough. For the record, Shilmer repeatedly refused to answer any questions about his bias (i.e., his standing as a JW or as an apostate JW) and I took his silence and the other articles written under this pseudonym as his apostasy. He could have, early on, cleared this up with his statement below. He chose to let it take the path it took. Perhaps Jeffro77 can give some testimony into the original repeated intentional antagonistic behavior by Shilmer toward me which set the stage for this steadily increasing acrimony. And Shilmer was a very willing partner in all this too. Shilmer has set a pattern of frustrating discussions and irritating any who question his edits. Shilmer has claimed infallibility. Look into the edit history regarding the matter with Vassili78 and the slurs Shilmer hurled at that editor. Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist. I have not received a single email from anyone suggesting that I have been treating Shilmer unfairly but I have received one thanking me for challenging him. I asked Seddon69 to counsel me privately several times along the way as I felt things were going too far. For my participation, I offer this public apology to all. -- cfrito (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Marvin Shilmer

I am glad this situation will finally reach some formal level. The madness needs to end. The article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a broad subject covering the version’s history, characteristics, criticisms and publishing. At issue is the articles inclusion of names of translators that various sources have put forth. The article has a long history of including this information. Editor Cfrito deleted these names from the article's main text were they have been published for a long time. As a compromise I relegated the information (“the names”) to footnotes in the reference section. I also removed one name entirely because it was unverified by sources. Editor Cfrito rejected this compromise edit and persisted in deleting the information (the names).

The information Cfrito objects to comes from multiple primary and secondary sources. A brief overview of these sources is available on a sandbox page I set up for continuing to work on this article throughout the current dispute. Information about the authors of these sources is available on the same talk page. You will also find on the same page a concise address of specific complaints made by Cfrito on this issue.

My presentation of this information (the names) is to offer it as the word of the men who published the information in the first place. Arbitrators can view how I have presented this information on my NWT sandbox article. Along with this information readers will also see where I present the views of the version’s publisher.

Specifically, Cfrito is wrong when he asserts that the relevance of the disputed information arises because “critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds”. Critics have various reasons for their criticisms on this issue, but chief among these is that when the publisher released the information it expressed that its translators were competent biblical scholars. Critics doubt this claim and have tried to verify it, with a result that the identities and credentials of the version's translators became a point of issue. Notwithstanding their reasons, secondary source on top of secondary source demonstrates that when it comes to this Bible version the issue of who translated it is one of several priority points of criticism.

Cfrito has also asserted on several occasions that information about the names of this version’s translators leaked to the public from only two sources. This claim is unproven by Cfrito, and evidence (particularly from author Tony Wills) disputes it. Arbitrators can read all about this in fairly concise form on my sandbox talk page for this article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: In view of Seddon69’s comments, I am compelled to state that it seems inappropriate for editors here to interpret Misplaced Pages policy when the issues relate to basic and explicit features of those policies. It would be inappropriate were I, for example, to make my own preferential interpretation of a Misplaced Pages policy and then treat that as authoritative for sake of asserting a preferential edit as worthy. If I have done this, I wish someone would point it out because I seek to avoid such behavior. If anything, I make attempts to scrupulously verify that whatever I add or remove from an article is based strictly on sources and/or weight of sources.

Whatever are the policies here (including interpretations) stability comes from editors following those policies. If editors are working under different rules there is unavoidable conflict. It is my opinion in this case that complaints of Cfrito stand in such stark contrast to Misplaced Pages policy that settling the current dispute is as easy as asking Cfrito to respond to a few basic questions about 1) what should determine information that goes into articles, 2) how that information should be presented in the article and 3) whether to let sources determine weight, value and relevancy. My understanding of policy is that all these are fueled by reliable published sources, and particularly secondary third-party sources. These determine what issues are valuable to a subject, how those issues should be presented and what weight a presentation should carry.

I want to learn and grow in the Misplaced Pages community, too. Hence please feel free to ask me any question that is deemed essential to settling the current dispute. No one wants this dispute settled more than I. There is work waiting to be done. We grow from test and challenge. Please take no pains to spare any feelings of mine. Where I am wrong I want to know in a straightforward fashion with no need for interpretation.

I see Seddon69 believes incivility of me. This is regrettable, and I want to again apologize for any misimpressions to my credit that leads anyone to think I believe Seddon69 in some way of poor character or otherwise bad. My feeling is that Seddon69 did the best he could. No one can ask more than our best.

Edited to add: In view of Slp1’s comments, I encourage administrators and arbitrators to examine issues of conduct on the part of all editors involved in this dispute. Where I am in need of correction, I want to hear it. This is part of growth for all of us. Of those quotations made by SlP1, they are all of my comments. I recommend each of them find examination in the context of the entire exchange with the parties involved. You will find these exchanges here, here, here, here and here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: If arbitrators are going to address editor conduct rather than how Misplaced Pages policy addresses the issue of dispute (not content but how to arrive at content), then everyone’s editing conduct deserves scrutiny, and not just mine. Editor Cfrito has complained I have battled to discredit him. He has accused me of incivility. Remarkably, editor Slp1 alludes to issues of editor conduct, and then offers references only to edits of mine. Below I am providing a short list of what I have been exposed to by editor Cfrito in the way of conduct:

Cfrito has called me rabidly anti-JW, childish, a total moron, misleading, bamboozler, a fake, a quack, a despot, an virulent anti-writer of JW's.

Cfrito has accused me of lying, playing word games, lying again, lack of personal integrity, pretending to be neutral, personal agenda, cheap theatrics, game-playing, axe grinding, using loaded language, grandstanding, playing word games, plug books of friends, twisting words, plugging my own books, presenting a side show, shameless personal bias, raking up muck

Cfrito has invited me to seek professional psychiatric help. He has suggested I am not well enough to be an Editor. He has said I have bipolar phrasing as a constant editorial companion.

Cfrito has dared to assign a religious disposition to me by calling me a former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion not just once but twice. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I have not complained once about any of the above, until now. Now, because it looks like arbitrators may make conduct their concern rather than the cause of the editing dispute (how to arrive at content and not content itself) I am pointing out the above behavior. I have not complained about the forgoing language from Cfrito because none of it has any adverse effect worthy of my concern. However, I have complained about Cfrito’s repeated accusations that I am a plagiarist. He has done this not just once, but a second and a third time. This latter accusation has potential to ruin a reputation; hence why I complained. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: Cfrito alludes to remarks of mine of a particular edit by Vassilis78. Cfrito states, “Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist.”

I am in academia. In my world plagiarism is a very serious thing. Very serious! But there is something worse. When someone intentionally writes and publishes something they know to be false, yet asserts it as true, this is worse than plagiarism. This is what Vassilis78 did. I am not referring to banter on a talk page. I am talking about an edit Vassilis78 made to an article. Specifically, when there was an issue of a person’s educational credentials, Vassilis78 inserted into the article: “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.” Vassilis78 knew when he inserted his sentence that it was false, yet he placed it into the article anyway. Arbitrators can view the episode where this edit was discussed here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon69

As the (attempted) mediator of this case i would like to make sure that the two parties understand that the Arbitration committee do not decide on content. If this case is to be accepted the content of your edits/wishes is not at judgment at this level it is your actions.

Regarding this, incivility has occurred by both parties, for example here by Marvin Shilmer, and here by Cfitro. There are more instances. The two were engaged in a prolonged edit war before the page was first locked.

At this moment in time, discussions are occurring at the Administrators Notice board for Incidents, Editor Assistance, my own talk page, the Article talk page, User Sand box talk pages, the Mediation talk page, the article talk page, and an RfC. None in these have resulted in a resolution of this matter yet. The two users have different ways of interpreting wikipedia policy and when in regards to such a controversial topic like the New World Translation, a longer term solution perhaps needs to be looked at.

Statement by mostly uninvolved Slp1

While the arbitration request has been framed for the most part as a content dispute, as such is likely outside the purview of this committee, I do believe that there are clear issues of user conduct here, as alluded to by the valiant Seddon69 who has been attempting mediation. The topic first came to my attention at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard along with User:Marvin Shilmer's incivility and failure to assume good faith. Multiple uninvolved editors who attempted to provide advice and opinions were commented upon: the following are just some sample edits from that board. I have not looked further, though note that Seddon69 mentions other examples, on other pages.

To Vassilis78 "I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?"

To Donald Albury : Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.

To EdJohnston : This omission is sure intentional; so why? If you find this a fulfilling endeavor then why not offer response to precise questions asked with a corresponding level of precision?

To Slp1  :if this does not communicate the relevancy of the question I presented you with just above, then you are not equipped to offer an answer to it.

To J Readings : Your response here leads me to believe that ... you have not taken time to make that opinion fit what I have actually written here. Which makes me wonder, why are you writing what you write?

An unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, as several editors have expressed in various fora. , Whether the extent of the problem needs Arb Com intervention is another issue, however.

Addendum: Marvin Shilmer complains that, “remarkably”, I listed only Shilmer’s edits as being uncivil/failing to assume good faith. As stated above, I limited my evidence to posts to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Since Cfrito has never posted to the RSN board, the omission of his/her edits is not so remarkable after all. Unfortunately, Shilmer’s comment about the issue provides a further (fairly minor) example of his tendency to see bad faith in the edits of other editors, and, what is worse, to allow his assumptions to influence his editing. On the other hand, I appreciate his presentation of evidence of apparent conduct unbecoming by Cfrito, which will no doubt be helpful to the arbitrators in making their decisions.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2)

• Accept to look at editor conduct not make a content decision. This may be slightly premature but I feel we can help here. I encourage the RFC and other discussion to continue with more users giving input based on our content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse. The proper translation of scripture and the activities of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are both areas where I have strong views. The matter is, therefore, best left to others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. This may be a borderline case (I've certainly seen worse incivility than that cited here) but there does look to be a longrunning problem with user misbehaviour. Per Flonight, let the RFC continue, because this may help resolve content disputes while we tidy up the user situation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Concur with Sam Blacketer, it's "borderline" and "seen worse". This case has run on enough to show that normal approaches are not (yet) resolving it and reasonable attempts have been made to do so prior to seeking arbitration. Judging by the discussion, the content issue should be resolvable; it's probably not excessively difficult to construct a neutral statement respecting all significant views. Unfortunately there seem to be persistent issues impeding consensus, even though both parties may have "good points". Accept to look at the conduct of all parties, but without necessarily assuming bad faith on any part. FT2  12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hold for a few days to see if any additional progress can be made via mediation or other dispute resolution methods. Although there have been few posts in the last couple of days, I gather some discussion elsewhere is still continuing, and it might be in the best interests of both editors to make a final effort to resolve the dispute amicably before entering into the arbitration process with results that could prove unsatisfactory to one or both of them. If and when the parties advise that other dispute resolution has failed, I would lean toward acceptance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wait and see as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• ]

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2  23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend a prior case: DreamGuy 2

List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Dmcdevit

Enforcing the remedy in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 as well as having any idea when DreamGuy is editing and who he is, which is important in light of his past behavior, is becoming increasingly difficult because of his decision to edit anonymously much of the time. As CheckUser, this puts me in an awkward situation because I don't want to have to be the one to carry out all the enforcement for DreamGuy, but at the same time, I don't want to have to out someone's IP unless there had actually been a violation (which another admin should decide, but which would be a waste of time if it's not him...). I would ask that ArbCom pass a motion requiring him to edit using only his DreamGuy account. Thanks. (See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, , Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Elonka.27s_DreamGuy_report, etc. for evidence of the issue.) Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

If Dmcdevit feels it has come to that, then I am lifting my prior objections. DG is free to present his case, however. I will drop him a note. El_C 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(In response to DreamGuy's post):
Yes, it's a concern that Elonka has still failed to cite the diffs promised, and that continues to reflect poorly on her. Still, I notice you often don't use edit summaries; why not always use edit summaries, and check after every edit to see if you were logged in or not, if not, add another minor edit and sign it as DG in the edit summary. Simple enough, no? El_C 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I've never made an edit while anonymous that wasn't obviously me. It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who. The simple answer when people continuously file check user claims is to tell them to stop wasting your time with bogus reports. You asked them to point out some alleged wrongdoing that would justify a checkuser, they refused to do so, instead assuming bad faith. I can't guarantee that I will always be signed on, but I can guarantee that I will never deny it's me when it isso there can be no question of any alleged deception. If Misplaced Pages can come up with a way to make it so I get automatically signed in even if my cookie runs out or the ISP switches my IP address, fine, but I think it's ridiculous and impractical to insist I be signed on when no good reason is given for it. It's just people desperate to come up with anything they can as an alleged sign of wrongdoing. But a better way to solve this is to tell people falsely filing sockpuppet accusations to knock it off. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack1956

Hi, Some days ago I requested an RfCU on Dreamguy as I suspected that he was using a sockpuppet to edit again after having been warned previously on several occasions not to (see here ). Indeed, because of his refusal to log on when editing he was blocked for 72 hours . It is my belief that Dreamguy is using an anon IP to edit again, hence my RfCU. The Checkuser request seems to have stalled. Can an admin take a look at my request please? My concern is that Dreamguy has edited the same articles (eg Jack the Ripper and The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91),etc) using several anon accounts, all of them supporting edits made by Dreamguy and/or each other, giving the appearance of consensus from several different editors when in fact it is possibly only one, using what appear to be a variety of sockpuppets (see see this and this and this and this and this in support). Jack1956 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Arcayne

(edit conflict)I find this particular comment by DG...odd: "It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who". Actually, it isn't, and that's part of the problem. In October of last year, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dreamguy violated 3RR and acted uncivilly, and because these violations occurred through his usage of his primary account and a back-up anon, the connection wasn't immediately uncovered and reported until after the 3RR and complaints grew stale (El_C and Dmcdevit declined to pursue on these grounds, and the RfCU was stalled while awaiting arbcom/an/i discussions stall). To date, Dreamguy has evaded any and all questions about his activitiies under that (or any, really) anon IP, even when specifically questioned about such by DickLyon.

This wacky excuse of Greamguy's - not knowing he's been signed out - could be true the first time it comes up, might be true the second time, and could remotely be true the third time, but by the fourth such complaint by unconnected editors, its time to for the editor in question to either voluntarily adjust their behavior, or to have it adjusted for them. That the user has refused to admit when questioned as to his anon status seems a clear indication that he is aware that he is doing wrong, and knows that his admission would be damning. Succinctly, any claim of 'oops, I didn't know' rings false.

Because of the ArbCom enforcement complaint in October, I have grown to mistrust DG's motives for editing anonymously. Clearly, he feels that he should be able to enjoy the same freedom to enjoy anonymously that El-C, Dmcdevit or most other users enjoy. Unfortunately, Dreamguy is under behavioral restrictions, which require monitoring for incidents of uncivil behavior. To me, this would seem to lessen (if not eliminate) that freedom to edit anonymously - especially those articles he contributes to under his primary account.

I think that El_C's suggestion that Dreamguy police his own awareness of his IP to be unrealistically optimistic. If Dreamguy were at all inclined to do so, he would have taken these steps the first four times the subject was broached (with at least two of them administrative-level complaints). Unfortunately, Dmdevit's request for ArbCom to pass a motion (requiring Dreamguy to edit using only his primary account) is the proportionate and proper course of action. This would act as a strong incentive for DG to police his online status more vigorously, as a failure to do so would result in a loss of editing privileges. - Arcayne () 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Dmcdevit's request seems reasonable to me. --Deskana (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing when not logged in happens, as DreamGuy says, and others agree. However, it is possible for something to happen, and also for it to be a problem when it does. It is not necessary to consider whether editing logged out is accidental or otherwise, because in this case, examining the evidence and history, it is clear that it is causing problems when it does, and that it does happen regularly.

WP:SOCK does not just cover puppetry through multiple accounts. It also covers the need of the community to be able to reasonably assess and scrutinize a users' editing history, without undue difficulty or obscurity. That is so, whether the issue is wilful or unintended. I also recall from being asked to write a note to the effect, that on January 11 2008 User:Rlevse blocked DreamGuy for 96 hours. The comment at that time was:

User:DreamGuy has remedies dealing with "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", as well as enforcements. Also the spirit of the arb ruling and prior decisions took note of disruptive behavior. He has since been gaming the system via IP socking (and arguing the fragmenting of his edit history) and edit warring, blockable under standard rules separate from the case. In the light of prior arbitration, I have therefore listed his 96 hour block under this case because although not strictly within said restrictions, his conduct is a continuation of gaming and other activities. (link)

In light of the above requests, the above block, and the general desirability of being able to review an editor's editing history, I would be inclined to endorse the request for amendment, and propose to that effect. FT2  00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion to add an additional remedy, as follows:
2) DreamGuy is restricted to using one and only one account to edit, and may not edit as an unlogged-in IP. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, if not DreamGuy, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

1. Support FT2  00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Kirill 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that an occasional inadvertent instance occurs of editing while not logged in may occur once in awhile. The concern is really about an ongoing pattern of doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support with the understanding that rare occasional instances of editing without logging in do happen and will not be considered a violation of the motion if they are promptly brought to the attention of arbcom-l privately. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Per FloNight. The case decision shows concerns about sockpuppeting are legitimate. The system occasionally logs out registered users, but when you edit anonymously it shows in a big alert at the top of the page saying you are not logged in. Once or twice is an accident, but more than that can begin to look deceptive in the context. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. --jpgordon 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Everyking 3

List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Everyking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Everyking and discussion

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that you are apparently reviewing the case exclusively on your private mailing list. I would like for it to be done at least partially in the open, so I can see the reasoning and make points in my defense if necessary. Everyking (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be open, it ought to be completely open, so the community can participate. I've got evidence I could present, for one thing. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all in favor of full openness. Everyking (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, my view is that almost all of the restrictions can be lifted at this time, but there have been reservations expressed about lifting the restriction on your interacting with Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) based upon the nature and history of your interactions with this user in the past. Could you kindly comment on whether maintaining this restriction in effect would have a substantial negative effect upon you or other editors. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the restriction itself goes, it doesn't really bother me, because I have no intention of interacting with that user anyway. However, I fear that any restriction at all will have some negative effect on my participation in the project, in the sense that arbitration restrictions act as a kind of scarlet letter. I would suggest that this restriction could be replaced by a personal pledge on my part to not interact with him; alternatively, the ArbCom could perhaps make it clear that the restriction is being left only due to historical reasons, that I have done nothing that the ArbCom views as a violation of that restriction or an offense against that user in a long time and that people should not therefore consider me a user of any kind of lesser standing because of that restriction. A third possibility is that you might ask the other user in question whether he wishes it to remain in place; if he had no objection to lifting it, that could make the answer simple. Everyking (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that motion 2 is almost exactly the same as the status quo. The only (slight) difference is that the music parole is terminated (it is now merely suspended); the other things that would be terminated according to remedy 2 were already terminated in November. So a vote for motion 2 is a vote for no change. I also am confused that FT2 says that motion 1 lifts all restrictions, including the one regarding Phil, but the actual motion says that the restriction on interacting with Phil would remain in effect. I feel I presented three reasonable suggestions about what could replace that remedy while still addressing arbitrator concerns and I would hope they could be given some consideration. But at the same time, I don't want to confuse or complicate the issue further, considering the arbitrators are presently split between the two motions. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has clarified the slight contradiction in his comment. With regard to the Phil Sandifer restriction, I tried to accommodate your concerns by noting that the continued restriction was based on past interactions, which was one of your points, and by specifically noting that you are eligible to post an RfA whenever you wish. I know this is not 100% of what you would have liked to see, but I tried to make a reasonable accommodation to your thoughts while posting a motion that addressed all competing concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my concerns regarding that continuation of that aspect of the ruling would be largely addressed if the ArbCom stated that I should be considered a user in good standing. No one disputes that I'm eligible to post an RfA; the problem is that my arbitration restrictions cause people to consider me a user in poor standing and make it pointless for me to attempt going through the process. Everyking (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider you a user in good standing, irrespective of the outcome of the pending motions. However, I don't think the committee typically "evaluates" users (beyond imposing specific remedies where needed), and for better or worse, when I've proposed in workshops (before I was an arbitrator) a finding that a specific user remains in good standing, those proposals have never been accepted. If you want my personal opinion, any RfA by you will be controversial for a couple of reasons, regardless of the outcome of any motion that will be made, but I think that the controversy will have very little to do with whether there is an ongoing arbitration restriction against your talking about Snowspinner or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll let it go, then. Everyking (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On 18 July 2007 at 01:16 (UTC), the arbitration committee announced that I am a "user in good standing". Brad, are you implying that I might be the only person officially recognized in this manner? Flattering thought, though it may require some research. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests is reliance, then yes, you are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

Is my understanding of Amended Remedy 4 -- that Everyking is prohibited from commenting on admin actions -- period/full stop -- correct, or am I thinking of a different, now-expired remedy? Or is it that Everyking is restricted from commenting only if certain specified conditions (such as location of the criticism or tone of criticism) are true? I'd like to be sure before commenting on specifics. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

I personally believe that Everyking should have all remaining sanctions lifted. I've interacted a few times with Everyking in the past few months, and every time I have I've found him to be courteous and intelligent. I think any problems he's had in the past have been addressed, and that he's learned from them, so I see little reason for any sanctions on him to continue. I very much doubt that Everyking would work to have his sanctions removed and then do something to have them re-instated. Like Newyorkbrad, I too consider Everyking to be a user in good standing. Acalamari 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This case dates back to 2005; and had to be re-opened on three subsequent occasions for continuing issues between 2005 and July 2006. The issues kept trying to come back, it would seem. However, in the last 18 months, there has been comparative peace, and EveryKing now wants to ask, reasonably, if the issue (close to 2 years old) can be closed and all restrictions lifted.

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree, subject to checking with other arbitrators (with longer memories) whether matters have indeed been reasonable since then. That is the view of motion #1. However there was an incident in October 2007 which looks like it has left Kirill with concerns. The matter was resolved civilly, and Everyking was willing to offer a reasonable compromise after some discussion and initial heel-digging, and was unblocked. The agreement seems to have worked that time. But I can see why concerns may linger on conduct issues, and why perhaps motion 2 is proposed also.

The differences between the two are remedies 5 ("required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it") and harassment/enforcement, would persist under motion #2. Does Everyking still need the protection of these to prevent him (and the community) from such conduct issues in future, or without them, will he still keep himself well? Or does the general track record since 2006, and the at least bearable handling of the above incident, suggest they are no longer needed? That's the issue. Will opine when I've considered a bit more. FT2  02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - away the weekend. If I haven't voted by tomorrow noon UTC, assume I'm offline, and supportive of either as 1st or 2nd choices. If others are ready to close then count me away and do so. FT2  03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Update 2 - minor correction as per EK's comment above. FT2  07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion 1:

Any remaining restrictions previously imposed upon Everyking (talk · contribs) in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or by subsequent motions are terminated, effective immediately, except that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with or commenting about Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) remains in effect based on the previous history of interaction between those users. Everyking is urged to continue to bear in mind the guidance regarding best editing and commenting practices provided in the committee's decisions. The committee notes that Everyking is eligible to submit a request for adminship at any time. It would be up to the community to decide whether to reconfer administrator status.

Support:

1. I am hopeful that the restrictions on this editor are no longer necessary. See also discussion above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
2. This seems to me a reasonable move forward, to recognise Everyking's more productive behaviour but to retain a restriction about contacting Phil Sandifer as a backstop. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No. See alternate motion. --jpgordon 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

Motion 2:

• 1. Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
  2. Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
  3. Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
  4. Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
  5. Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
  6. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
  7. Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

Support:

1. jpgordon 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as second choice if my motion fails. However, this vote should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Remedy 5 is common sense and therefore almost impossible to enforce. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Request to amend a prior case: Free Republic

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by SirFozzie

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

This remedy, passed on the Free Republic RfArb, unfortunately has lacked teeth, and the page has had to be protected for numerous edit wars between Eschoir (who has a conflict of interest after being involved in legal action initated by Free Republic) and several accounts, largely believed to be sock or meat puppets of community banned (and ArbCom endorsed Ban) User:BryanFromPalatine. See this edit for evidence submitted by :Lawrence Cohen as a report requested by CheckUser User:Lar. I'd like to formally request that the Arbitration Committee modify the above sanction in the following way.

Proposed sanction

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any uninvolved administrator. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Proposed sanction 2.1

The standard article probation wording seems to have been developed after the Free Republic case. It would be:

Free Republic is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from Free Republic and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Additionally, I support SirFozzie's request for better enforcement. Jehochman 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

(In response to Jehochman 2.1):
Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Other prior discussion

Esteemed SirFozzie: I certainly do not wish to appear disputatious, but when was it determined that I have a current COI with anybody? What evidence was taken and who heard it? It was formerly determined, and I will allow, that I had a COI, seven years ago. France had a COI with Germany in 1940, but I believe that dispute settled, too, and the French may edit the Merkel page to this day. Eschoir (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you picked the wrong World War as your analogy, Eschoir. The Germans had a COI with France in 1914, and most of the world thought that dispute was settled in 1918. But the Germans held a grudge for more than two decades. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. On the Talk page, Shibumi2's description of your editing agenda is right on the money. You're trying to take out everything good, and stuff in everything bad. I have a COI because I hate Freepers. I know better than to edit that article. You should too. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

8.1) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.. Look familiar? SirFozzie (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to. There was a hearing a year ago, evidence taken, and a formal finding published, which you have reproduced here. That finding did not include finding a current COI, though it could have. Now, though nothing has changed since that finding, the sockpuppets want another bite at the apple, or rather, want to bypass the former finding through wave upon wave of suicide sockpuppets ready to be bannned for the cause keeping up a constant drumbeat of COI! COI! until it becomes a fait accompli, which practice has succeeded somewhat in coloring your opinion without hearing from me.Eschoir (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I made that decision all on my own.. Someone who has been in legal conflict with another organization isn't quite the best person to write about that person. It's like asking Greenpeace to write the article on the Exxon Valdez. I have noted many times that all the other accounts on the other side are likely to be related in many ways to BryanFromPalatine, even if it can't be substantiated. Misplaced Pages is not a Battleground, and that's what we have on our hands here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that it wasn't a battleground from the time Freedomaintfree was banned till six months later when Shibumi2 restored a previous sock's version? Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a period when you were editing the article all by yourself, and turned it into what Samurai Commuter accurately described as a "bitter little personal blog of a banned Freeper" and a "poison pen letter to Jim Robinson." It's hard to have a battleground when there's only one person present. As for your claim about "another bite of the apple," there is abundant new evidence that (A) you are incapable of overcoming your COI, and (B) you can't leave the article and related pages (such as MD4Bush Incident) alone as I have done without being given a proper incentive. I hate Freepers. That's why I never edited that article and never will. I admit that I have a COI. Since there is abundant new evidence to support additional action by ArbCom in this matter, through no one's fault but your own, ArbCom should take action. I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages project. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to all the parties who have ably demonstrated to ArbCom why this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed Neutral Good, he just announced a wikibreakEschoir (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages project.

That sure reads like: You've got a really nice little night club here, Vinnie, I'd hate to see anythin' bad happen to it. Extortion is such a harsh word. Eschoir (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just seeing if ArbCom can or will take this up. I'm all for being WP:ROGUE and settling the matter myself if need be, but I wanted to give ArbCom the chance to look at their finding and see if it needs to be updated first. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of this discussion took place prior to the new format, and is in a threaded style which is now not in use. Future comments in individual sections. Thanks! - FT2

Statement by Eschoir

(In response to Proposed Motion):
I support all except this quibble

editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest,

I may be wrong or just presumptuous, but COI is a term of art, with a particular definition meant to describe a factual state. Using language such as 'may reasonably be percieved as having a COI' would would equate opinion with fact. A 'reasonable' standard is less stringent than a 'preponderance' standard, and certainly not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Recast the sentence thus: "Editors who are or may reasonably be perceived as being pregnant . . ." and see how absurd that standard is.

"All editors" means all editors. The gloss on SPAs and COIs is unnecessary, and potentially harmful, and I urge thoughtful reflection before adoption of such language.Eschoir (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Eschoir

1. All editors are strongly urged to do this. (Because it's a communal norm.)
2. Users who have a focus on that article specifically, and therefore may draw concern as to their neutrality from others (whether accurate or not), and also editors who actually in the real world do have a conflict of interest, and also editors who may not have a conflict of interest but where it is likely given their edits that a reasonable person may feel concern due to the perceptions arising from those edits, are being particularly reminded to do so, since they are considered more likely to run into such issues (due to prior disruption there) and therefore should take especial care to avoid doing so.

I have no problem with any of those statements. The issue is, can the community use them to deal with the issue. My feeling is they can. FT2  08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Misplaced Pages policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Per discussion above and previously on this page as well as evidence and proposals submitted in the Waterboarding case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
2. FT2  01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Has more likelihood of sufficient teeth, and allows for review if not. Modified one word: "closely related article" to "closely related page", noting this wording may include their talk pages and project pages also.
3. Hope this helps make the articles more in compliance with our core content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. More powers for administrators in this article are needed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse, which I guess works the same. --jpgordon 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

{Inserting of Christain Missionary Propaganda on Lisu People Page}

Initiated by Wwind (talk) at 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Wwind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Brian0324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lisu_people

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

we have tried to discuss. But the user is very set on including irrelavant information on Christain Missionaries who have coverted Lisu people to Christaininty in a certain region. This is a blip in the radar of the Lisu culture which spans over 5 countries. Christainity should be mentioned because many Lisu people are in fact Christain, however discussion of the 'Christain movement' and famous missionairies who have converted groups is quite irrelavant. I have recommended the fact that some Lisu are Christain be included, however the user seems to have an agenda with his editing based on looking at his profile page.

Statement by {Party 2}

The user Wwind has repeatedly deleted all of the information regarding the notable impact of Christian missionary work among the Lisu: creating an alphabet and the conversion of nearly 80% of the Chinese Lisu. The information was presented in a neutral way and Wwind has repeatedly insisted on being the judge of what should be allowed in this article, which amounts to bias and censorship. He has engaged in personal attacks and has contributed nothing to this article. However, I have sought dicussion and warned him of edit warring, and did not respond in kind even though for the last 2 days he has broken the three revert rule twice. If he is not blocked, I will soon report the offense at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.Brian0324 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Below is the text in Question that I believe should be removed. It should be edited to reflect the fact that some Lisu are Christain and some are Animistic. That is all.

Religion

In the period up to the 20th century, the Lisu religion was part animistic part ancestor worship, but was imbricated within complex local systems of place-based religion. Most important rituals were performed by Shamans.

In the beginning of the 20th century, many Lisu people in China converted to Christianity, at first largely through the work of the Scottish missionary James O. Fraser.

Fraser developed a script for the Lisu language and used it to prepare a catechism, portions of Scripture, and eventually, with much help from his colleagues, a complete New Testament. Working initially on Mark and John and then on a handbook of Lisu history and language, Fraser handed on the translation task to Allyn Cooke and his wife, Leila, coming back to help the team with revision and checking in the mid 1930s. The complete New Testament was finished in 1936. In 1992, the Chinese government officially recognized the Fraser alphabet as the official script of the Lisu language.

John Kuhn and his wife Isobel, Eugene Morse continued the work after Fraser died, but by that time the Lisu church was already self propagating, and were sending their own missionaries to other tribes.

As of 2007 Christianity is thriving in the Salween River valley where the Lisu live 50 years after the death of missionary Isobel Kuhn. Of the 18,000 Lisu who lived in Fugong in 1950 - 3,400 professed to be Christian. As of 2007 there are estimated to be 80-90 percent of the 70,000 making the same profession. In Yunnan it is estimated that there are between 100,000-200,000 total Lisu Christians. More than 75,000 Lisu Bibles have been legally printed in China following this growth.

1. "Yunnan Province of China Government Web". Retrieved 2008–02–15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. OMF International (2007), p. 1-2

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee