Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment | User conduct Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:46, 31 July 2007 editCberlet (talk | contribs)11,487 editsm tweak← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:08, 15 October 2007 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits restored for ArbCom 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="messagebox"
In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute with a ''single'' user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:42, July 29, 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.
| The history of this page has been restored for an Arbitration proceeding. This is not an active Request for comment. Please do not add new comments here.
----
|}
*{{user3|Cberlet}}

----
''Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.''
==Statement of the dispute==
This editor has engaged in a pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing. This is particularly true for ] and related articles, although the pattern extends to other articles unrelated to LaRouche. Cberlet is the Misplaced Pages username for ], who is referred to as an "advocacy journalist" with a particular axe to grind with respect to LaRouche. As such, there are also problems with ] and with conflict of interest, particularly because he edits very aggressively.

=== Desired outcome ===
Either there should be a substantial change of behavior, or this editor should not edit those articles where he has violated policy and where he has a conflict of interest.

=== Description ===
One admin who clerks for the ArbCom made the observation in connection with a LaRouche article that he "would prefer that Cberlet not edit an article in which he has such a ] (he is named several times and his publications are cited as sources)." Beginning no later than 1981, ] along with ] engaged in a campaign to allege that ] was involved in illegal activities, and agitated together for criminal prosecution, as in . As Cberlet and Dking, they have agressively launched content disputes to remove material that displeases them, particularly quotes from prominent individuals that suggest LaRouche's trial was politically motivated. Another Wikipedian who has worked extensively with COI issues expressed this view: "Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: ] with very obvious ]."

Cberlet intiated a series of edit wars in articles related to Lyndon LaRouche. Throughout all of this, Cberlet maintained an extremely belligerent and uncivil tone with other editors. In ], it specifically advises against "Judgmental tone in edit summaries." Cberlet is a chronic offender in this regard (evidence below.)

*Cberlet initiated an edit war beginning on May 31() to remove a reference to ] from the lead of ]. ] has published attacks on Clark for his involvement in the LaRouche legal case, raising COI questions.
*No sooner had Cberlet given up on removing the Clark reference, but he initiated a new edit war regarding the insertion of material he had written on LaRouche for ''Encyclopedia Judaica'', in which he claims that LaRouche is anti-Semitic and that LaRouche's campaign against ] is "masked" anti-Semitism. He claims credit for writing the section, but when he added it to the article, he avoided attributing it to himself. This was reverted by other editors, who objected to the length of the material inserted, as well as the self-citing. Another editor added a compromise version . Cberlet commenced edit war, insisting that the entire segment must be included. In , Cberlet attempts to minimize the importance of a quote from LaRouche in which LaRouche states his oppositon to anti-Semitism, by placing it at the end of a long segment. The segment is primarily devoted to claims by Dennis King and Chip Berlet that LaRouche is an anti-Semite.
*Next, Cberlet initiated an edit war at ] over material he inserted which insinuates that LaRouche caused a member of his organization to commit suicide. The material came from a questionable source: a small weekly paper that is both owned and edited by a disaffected former member of the LaRouche organization, who also authored the article cited by Cberlet. However, Cberlet makes claims in his edit that are much more inflammatory than those in the article. This was challenged on grounds of ], and Cberlet commenced an edit war, while leaving inflammatory and gratuitous diatribes on the article talk page (see evidence.)

:Cberlet's aggressive editing of the "LaRouche Youth Movement" article also raises questions of COI, since in 2002, Chip Berlet's employer, ], received a grant of $175,000 from the ] "to study the college and university campus leadership and outreach programs of major national organizations and social movements and their relationship to political environments on campuses."




=== Evidence of disputed behaviour ===
<!--(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)-->
] violations in article ]:
:#
:#
:#
:#
:#
:#
''On talk page:''
:#
:#
:#

]:
:#
:#
:#


]:
:#
:#
:#

] (''"Judgmental tone in edit summaries"''):
:#
:#
:#
:#
:#
:#

''"Calling for bans or blocks"'':
:#

''Other:''
:# At ], Cberlet mocked a comment by another editor by creating a new poll and signing that editor's name to one of the questions, posting the edit summary, "Is this formulation of your views correct User:Don't lose that number?" The other editor objected and removed the signature attributed to him.
:#

''Responses to attempts to resolve the dispute:''
:#
:#
:#
:#

=== Applicable policies and guidelines ===
<!--{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}-->
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]


=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===
<!--(provide diffs and links)-->
:#
:#
:#

''earlier efforts by other editors:''
:#
:#

''off-wiki:''
:#
:#+

=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''
:#] 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:#] 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. -->

=== Other users who endorse this summary ===
<!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -->
:#-- ] <small>ᛇᚹᛟ</small> 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:#
:#
:#

==Response==
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

There are factual errors in the Description, and the POV is so highly biased that it is almost surreal. I am in my outside life ], a working journlaist and researcher who has written about LaRouche for major daily newspapers and other reputable sources. Now, apparently, I am part of a vast conspiracy funded by the Ford Foundation.

Please note that the complainant (and it is a complaint) edits Misplaced Pages ],] by deleting and challenging any critical reference added to text, and then engaging in endless tendentious debates over exact wording and what consititues a reputable source.

Only a handful of days ago I filed for a mediation asking several pro-LaRouche editors to have a mediated discussion over whether or not I was a proper source for LaRouche-related pages, and whether or not Wiki editors whose primary work on Misplaced Pages was defending LaRouche and deleting critical material should be covered by prior Arbcom decisions about resricting pro-LaRouche editors. That mediation request failed due to lack of agreement to participate.

Now, after two of those editors have been banned, we have this adversarial complaint.

I would like to inquire what actual constructive steps to resolve the dispute were taken by ] or ]? I filed for arbcom enforcement, which would have entailed an actual constructive discussion. I filed for mediation, which would have entailed an actual constructive discussion. I repeatedly set up polls of editors to determine consensus. I repeatedly engaged in discussions with other editors where we crafted specific language. It seems to me that the claim that there is serious "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" on the part of ] or ]? is simply not accurate.

Here is the policy on attempting resolution of a dispute from the :

*::'''Revert wars considered harmful'''
*::3) ] are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of ], such as ], ], ], ], or ].

Here are some excerpts from the policy on filing RFC's:

::*The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise.

::*RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for ].

::*An RfC may bring close scrutiny on ''all'' involved editors, and can lead to binding ]. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

::*Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the ] policy, belong in an ].

A review of the pages in question will show that I continued to edit constructively (and with compromises) to help craft language that ended up as entry text after lengthy discussions.

I heartily endorse the idea of filing an ] to seek broad Wiki editor input on the LaRouche-related pages.

] and ] did take one step, they conspired to set up an RFC , (which is ironic for people defending a conspiracy theorist), but this was after their allies were banned from editing after the four primary pro-LaRouche editors failed to prevent properly cited critical material on LaRouche from being added to relevant pages.

As the complainant, ], put it in a post to the discussion page of ]:

*::In my opinion, if someone can be banned for restoring a link, then Cberlet and Dking have been getting away with murder in terms of BLP violations. I would encourage you to make requests on their talk pages that they clean up their act and stop violating policy. If they fail to do so, two or more of us should file WP:RFC on them. --Marvin Diode 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not supposed to be used to continue edit warring in another venue.

I am entirely willing to return to editing text, but Wiki admins need to offer assistance to enforce standard Wiki policies and guidelines (including user conduct) on the LaRouche-related pages in a fair and equitable manner. Otherwise the pages inexorably turn into POV advertisements for LaRouche and his networks. This is a problem that has gone on for years. Just [http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:LaRouchetalk check out this list.

I hope we all can get back to editing text--the purpose of Misplaced Pages.--] 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


==Outside view by Will Beback==
] says that ] started "edit wars" as if it were possible to have a one-person edit war. He ignores the many negative personal comments, and even attacks, that have been made repeatedly by pro-LaRouche editors. The COI issues have been discussed, but the COI policy clearly allows experts to edit articles in their field of specialty. Finally, it is highly ironic that Marvin Diode calls Cberlet a "single-purpose account". Cberlet has been a valuable contributor to scores of articles over several years. Marvin Diode's record speaks for itself. I don't think this RfC is merited, and it certainly is not made with clean hands. ]] ] 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#] 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#] 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Outside View by Dagomar==
This RfC brings up an issue that has been sitting around for quite some time. When I look at LaRouche related articles I see that the root of this dispute is "Should an author of material agitate for the inclusion of his material?" This is true for both Mr. Berlet and Mr. King. I feel that failure to deal with this issue will result in more grief and aggravation for everyone. Frankly, we would be doing a grave injustice to all authors if we don't address it.
I will therefore be creating a separate RfC to deal with this issue.

I feel that the best solution in this case is for everyone to take a big step back and look at things from the other side's perspective then reconsider their behavior. We need to stop pointless blame games. ] 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Discussion==
''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to ]. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.<!--





Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.



-->

Latest revision as of 01:08, 15 October 2007

The history of this page has been restored for an Arbitration proceeding. This is not an active Request for comment. Please do not add new comments here.