Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 3 September 2007

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.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Liancourt Rocks disputes

Initiated by Wikimachine at 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

(There may be more interested, but so far these are the only ones that are active)

• Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phonemonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Clownface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Opp2
• LactoseTI
• Good friend100
• Komdori
• Clownface

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Requests for mediation/Dokdo Request for mediation
• Request for comment
• Requested move
• Requested move
• Requested move
• recent discussion about the introduction
• Another in the past about "physical presence" (=intro)
• same discussion 1 year ago

Statement by Wikimachine

This Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks article has troubled so many over the last 2 years - it needs arbitration. It’s not just one single disagreement or requested move – it’s the subject in its entirety. Unless the arbitration committee draws a clear line over what is POV and what is NPOV, what is acceptable and what is not, what is prescription and what is description, and what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, these POVs will continue to ravage the article with revert wars while hiding behind Misplaced Pages’s procedural & policy-based shields. They make a change on the article that is being discussed about in the talk page, and then when we revert they say we’re reverting against consensus when in fact the change was based on no consensus to begin with & changes require consensus to begin with. And when we (in the latest case it is "I") revert, "they" suddenly multiply from what was 2 editors in dispute to 4 - it's so perfectly coordinated . But the whole situation is us vs. them - no actual thing as consensus (they agree amongst themselves & then say "consensus") l consensus here - it's just a cold war with revert wars & 3RR ban being the leverage. In the end, this is about how many guys you have on your side able to participate in a revert war & 3RR but you've got to run a movie to make it all seem legitimate. (in the last 2 years, they never agreed on anything or never worked out a compromise & the only thing that would force them to was the poll - unless they have a compromise that is just as bad as the original). In fact, the entirety of the Liancourt Rocks talk page & the archives is the evidence that so many other steps throughout the last 2 years have been tried by the both sides. No one is ever satisfied and some main players here don't do anything else other than to edit on the Liancourt Rocks talk page (i.e. Opp2 & Clownface). (See this article to test & see my neutrality) These ppl (JPOV & KPOV) are too lazy or obsessed with their POVish beliefs that they refuse to add but emphasize certain points (for example, the most recent: instead of controlled & claimed, they want "claimed-claimed, and controlled" in the 1st paragraph of intro when these things are plainly explained in the 2nd para of intro & thoroughly covered in the main body - in order to emphasize that the Japanese claim is on equal level as Korean claim over the island & to imply illegitimacy behind Korean control - why would any country claim a territory that it's already controlling?).

The most recent conflict is on the intro - (2 versions advocated here) (rv1rv2 - they take turns reverting, this happened since they made their accounts, see contribs). I never agreed with the proposed introduction from Komdori, LactoseTI, and Phonemonkey & I was never aware of the change on the article that was unilaterally made by Opp2 (notice POV with Japan coming first, S. Korea coming 2nd). All throughout the talk, I disagreed with many things that make up Opp2's version & the fixes thereafter: Moreover, I did not know that there was any change made in the main article: I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about And then Komdori replies: "A half dozen or so editors worked" - oh yeah the 6 editors listed above - 4 vs 3 -that sure is "worked over" "a lot went into". None of us agreed with anybody else & those 4 LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, and Phonemonkey agreed amongst themselves. Komdori says "We don't need your permission." but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either.

This article is a very different environment - like Europe, the old alliances are already fixed - there are old timers here who meddle in every dispute (including me). It's not random editors coming in & making edits & contributing to discussions w/ good faith (b/c no other ppl are interested in this dispute except for the nationalists) Everything is fixed & a self-fulfilling prophesy & we're trapped in this framework, & that's why arb is necessary. Whatever we do we're POVs unreasonable nationalists & uncivil (they can make us so). If we go on revert war, we'll be outnumbered. If we continue on talk, we'll be outvoiced & outpolled. Even if they are wrong, it's justified b/c we have to accept all views per NPOV - yet at a closer examination this is not a problem of NPOV but matter of reasonability, reality, and description over prescription. If we accuse them of being unilateral & cheap (this infuriates me) they reply w/ "Wikimachine: why don't we try the other steps first".

2nd dispute: Opp2 wanted to get rid of the word "administer" for S. Korea b/c Japan didn't "administer" in the sense of control but mere paperworks of registering the islets as a province. The way he aimed at this was by searching on google & listing several sites that used "occupy" to describe the situation and the same for "admnister". So, Opp2 says, you must replace all equivalents of "occupy" with "occupy" and "occupy" is the only word you can use b/c it's most neutral b/c Opp2 listed few more websites that use "occupy" rather than "administer". This is Original Research. I want to emphasize that none of our reliable, NPOV, and cooperative editors here - LactoseTI, Komdori, and Phonemonkey attempted to explain to Opp2 that it was original research & actually defended him.

Another is: Last requested move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks at first ended in no consensus. However, they lobbied the admin Husond at his talk page & weeded out several early accounts to just reach the % that another admin holding the previous RM defined as consensus & then overturned the decision. This incident bothers me on two levels - first, they failed to weed out a few of their own early accounts, and second, even when I showed the admin that if he were to consider the illegitimate accounts on Liancourt Rocks side there would be no consensus the admin didn't listen.

3rd dispute: 1) about the info box which contains "administration" section showing Japan & South Korea, their respective provincial titles, etc. 2) originally not there, but somebody put it there to show Japan on top of S. Korea b/c of alphabetical order - which I disagree b/c Liancourt Rocks, whether disputed by Japan or not, is a Korean territory). Shows how vicious & vicious they're. In other words, S. Korea controls the island & therefore is the only country with administrative rights over the island (i.e. ~ tax, census, if we were to say that ppl lived there). Japan can "administer" or "register" the island as "Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane" but that's as far as Japan can ever go & the info box doesn't ask for "administer" in the sense of "register". LactoseTI & Phonemonkey say that "control" does not mean "administrative rights" b/c it could be illegitimate. I see how they link "rights" and "legitimacy" but even with illegit occupation a country can "administer" a territory &, even if LactoseTI's saying that Japanese viewpoint is that the occupation is illegitimate, all info box asks for is just that control.

A related problem is that it's JPOVish to present this Japan-Korea dispute with Japan on equal level with Korea. It's just like (made up) Russia disputing Alaska with the US. Sure, both countries are disputants, but who controls the land, who controlled the land before, which side has better historical evidence (in this case, the ev. that the US bought Alaska from Russia) (in Liancourt Rocks, according to Yale Global, Korea) (a better example is Tsushima Island except S. Korea disputes over it) The simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on equal level with the disputed. Even if I concede that Dokdo was Japanese to begin with, it is within Korean territory - just like Tsushima is within Japanese territory. It is unrealistic for Japan to try to take Dokdo - all Japan wants currently is a disputed status & therefore equal level of dispute is JPOVish. Misplaced Pages should describe, not prescribe, but here they prescribe a less accepted view as equivalent to the dominant view. It's cheap b/c they use the NPOV policy that all views must be represented as a leeway to emphasize heavily on JPOV. And this also spills over to the current title of the article -it's more JPOV than NPOV (even if slightly) b/c it challenges Korean claim's legitimacy even when Korea controls the island. It's like changing Tsushima Island to something in English just b/c S. Korea disputes it.

Another thing is WP:CIVILITY - sure both sides use exclamation marks & bolds & few "wth" sometimes, but the other party's superior & condescending attitude really bothers all of us here (we don't do this, however). When accused, they reply "stop being paranoiac", "you're mistaken", etc. For example, I reverted the edits on the info box b/c I thought that the order of administration was based on the alphabetical order of the geographical subjects, not the disputants. And in fact, I reverted myself even before anybody replied back in response on talk page (see this. And then something so ridiculous - the other party - (none could boast as many edits or as long stay as me) happened - they all remind of the wikipedia rules! "unfortunately this is not Misplaced Pages policy" "It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Misplaced Pages policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline" I even replied "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." But Macgruder goes further, even 1 day after my own revert, "If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K." Oh sure you don't. Then comes the bullseye: "Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you".

Finally, the other side's action is very well coordinated - almost like a conspiracy & wait, we have evidence. Google, Ginnre's talk page, although link is now modified by the forum, Ginnre's talk page, showing the exact forum discussion, deleted due to copyright In short, there are forum discussions in Japanese outside of Misplaced Pages about Liancourt Rocks - and 2chnet example was a thorough analysis of all KPOV editors on Liancourt Rocks. I can't accuse directly any of them here, but I know that Komdori & LactoseTI are nearby friends and since their first edits they participated & coordinated together in a requested move (see my previous sock accusation data and the previous sock accusation case where I specified 2 links on their first edits . And also their efforts at the previous requested move was very well coordinated & their arguments (made individually & separately) all fit well & were well structured, based on Misplaced Pages's policies (I was really surprised, so I responded to make things clear for everyone at here). (Wikimachine 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Therefore I'd like for the arbitration to accomplish following things:

• First decide if the last requested move was legitimate, and if the current title is POV or NPOV (b/c ppl are planning another RM in the future) (look at my analysis of the requested move at this archived link.)
• Second decide if S. Korea & Japan are disputing over the island at equal level or not or if it's a case similar to Tsushima Island.
• Third specify which version (b/w the 2 reverts) is better & elaborate on additional compromises & specify certain things that are needed to make the article NPOV.

• I will also write an alternate version of the article. I think that the many compromises will wear down neutrality of the alternate version, & that it'd be best if the arbitration committee would decide if my alternate version at User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks would be acceptable. (Wikimachine 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

After these things are cleared, it'll be possible for me to work on the article as I am on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (which I aim to make a featured article). You can clearly see that I'm quite NPOV & take interest in article development more than anything like emphasis, I love different viewpoints purely b/c they are interesting, and I try to cite everything --> no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Statement by LactosTI

Just a comment--this request is really preliminary in nature. Few if any of the dispute resolution steps have been tried recently (in the last few months) and have nothing to do with the issues at hand (the only dispute resolutions tried recently were a few ultimatums by Wikimachine not to undo his revert like this). Wikimachine also explicitly said he was skipping other forms of dispute resolution because of his bad faith for other editors here ("Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists."). Surely this is a controversial article, so it makes sense that controversy after controversy will crop up as the content develops; still, it's better to work in the framework that is set up (and works!) inside Misplaced Pages rather than jumping here as a first step.

This case also only lists a handful of the many established editors involved recently, excluding users like Gettystein, Endroit, and Kusunose. The editor filing this request stated on the page he basically wishes to skip the other steps since he doesn't care for the obvious consensus. Wikimachine: Why don't we try the other steps first (along with a big dose of good faith), and see how it turns out? The process tends to go a lot smoother that way. —LactoseTI 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm totally uninvolved here and have only given the dispute a cursory glance, but based on my experience with similar situations, I'd recommend Arbcom take this case and hand out topic bans liberally on all sides. Asking the parties to engage in further dispute resolution first would be futile here. They've been debating this for years and years, what else would they try now? The article has seen dozens of edits since yesterday alone, most of which were reverts. The most disappointing thing, however, is to look at the talkpage and at the request here, and look at the quality of the debate. These guys have been fighting over those islets for two or three years, and they are still framing their debates in terms of which side is right and which side is wrong! Apparently, people are simply not getting it that this is not what NPOV is all about. If they haven't learned that yet, why would we expect they learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. The Committee does not handle content disputes. Kirill 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; content dispute. --jpgordon 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept (Of course there is a content disupt, but there is also an obvious problem with achieving NPOV through mutual effort). Fred Bauder 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

THF / Michael Moore

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DavidShankBone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This debate has been going round in circles for some time, since at least July to my eyes, and involves a number of inter-related problems. As soon as one thread is archived from ANI, another one pops up, and at one time I think it was running at ANI, WP:COIN, article and user talk pages. The fundamental issue is not resolvable by debate, because there is no evident consensus, and an arbitrated settlement seems likely to be the only effective remedy. Finally, David Shankbone has asked me to bring this here as he too does not believe the dispute will be resolved without arbitration.

Statement by User:JzG

• User:THF has recently changed username; his previous username was his real name and that identifies him (as he acknowleedges) as the author of some trenchant criticism of Michael Moore
• There was a dispute between THF and David Shankbone over the article Sicko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been the focus of offsite criticism written by THF and published in The American
• The external dispute and the on-Wiki dispute have merged to the extent of Moore's website attacking THF, which...
• Led to an argument over whether Moore's website is therefore an attack site, which came out as "no" as long as links are not used to harass THF
• The dispute over THF's article was settled as not including or citing it.

At this point: THF has accepted consensus not to include the link, but the dispute over his continued editing of Moore-related articles refuses to die. Some think that THF should avoid issues of conflict of interest by not editing articles in respect of Moore, since THF's day job includes writing critical pieces about Moore. THF does not accept that, and has some supporters in that.

Result: Impasse.

Many thousands of bytes of debate with several dozen admins active have not resolved this, and it is not fundamentally a user-to-user dispute, since the user-to-user issues can be resolved by the users leaving each other alone and if necessary application of the Wikitrout, but the question of whether THF may be considered to have a conflict of interest remains to be settled, and it's not clear to me who can settle it other than ArbCom, as THF asserts there is no conflict, and some admins agree, and some disagree.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy says: It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial. THF appears to be pursuing an activist agenda, has a professional and financial commitment to the subject of Moore, and the subject is controversial.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 says A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Misplaced Pages; that can only be determined by the edits to Misplaced Pages.

Cards on the table, I think that being his day job plus the off-wiki dispute puts it beyond a strong point of view and into a conflict of interest, at least to the point that THF should probably restrict himself to the Talk pages of Moore related articles, but it could be called either way.

I want to stress that apart from occasional forgiveable lapses neither party has done anything to earn a block or other sanction, it's settlement of the issue of whether this is a material conflict of interest that's needed. This is not, as ATren suggests, punishing THF for disclosing his viewpoint and identity, it's thanking him for doing so and then deciding how we, as a community, feel his viewpoint should best be accommodated within policy and guidelines. On the other hand, while THF asserts all his edits have been NPOV, enough others have expressed concern at, for example, his promotion of his novel rating system for documentaries, that valid concerns clearly exist.

Guy (Help!) 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response to Durova: this has nothing to do with the michaelmoore.com site, except in that there is evidence of a personalised dispute on and off Misplaced Pages between two parties. If the attacks did not exist, it would make little difference. How many of our editors are actively publishing editorials about the articles they edit? It would be interesting to know how many there are, to gauge the likely scale of the problem Durova posits - subjects' websites publishing critique of editing by individuals known to be politically active in opposition to them. Is that a problem, even? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response to DTobias: Is it really necessary to try to hijack this arbitration in support of your holy crusade to allow links to Misplaced Pages Review? The question of whether michaelmoore.com is an attack site was handled perfectly sensibly, by looking at the content and determining that it was not primarily or significantly devoted to attacks, and would only be counted an attack if links were posted directly in order to harass or intimidate THF. As far as this case goes, it is a non-issue, settled some time back, and relevant only in as much as it indicates an off-Wiki dispute, albeit one escalated through Misplaced Pages. Dan appears to be trailing red herrings here, just as he did in the discussions over SlimVirgin. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cool Hand Luke

I share the above sentiment and the prevailing consensus that this intractable and highly disruptive dispute will wind up before ArbCom eventually.

I urge ArbCom to clarify the COI rules such that interested editors can openly declare their COI and maintain a right to make noncontroversial edits and good faith editorial suggestions on the talk page of conflicting topics. This is in accord with ArbCom precedent.

A more restrictive policy will deter future editors from ever declaring their potential conflicts of interest. This would be very bad for Misplaced Pages. Known conflicts are much easier to monitor. Clear, non-punitive rules should be set down for editors like THF. Cool Hand Luke 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dev920

I got involved in this thing when people first started claiming michaelmoore.com was an attack site. Since then, I have been vaguely following THF's disputes and also editing his article. What I've noticed is that THF is contradictory and in being so draws arguments out much further than they need to be. One of the things that looked so suspicious when this dispute started was he demanded that everyone who knew his name not mention it - a task impossible to do if one is discussing a potential COI, particularly a COI raised by mm.com, the "attack site" everyone was discussing. THF claimed it was for privacy - but then linked to the article on himself. He insisted, however, that everyone separate his name and his username the extent that he edited my comments changing his name to his username - but just now threw caution to the wind and mentioned his article's name on AN/I. He has gotten into a habit of prolonging threads by insisting on privacy, claiming people are harrassing him, whatever, and then completely blowing his own cover. He seems to be craving privacy only when it suits his agenda for people not to know who he is. To be honest, given the size of Misplaced Pages, his knowledge bases and the endless swirling controversy between him and his COI, perceived or real, I do not know why THF has continued to edit articles related to Michael Moore. His presence is clearly resulting in more heat than light.

This is not to say that David Shankbone is justified in endlessly following THF around wiki and repeatedly the same accusations over and over again. But I think both men are incapable of not having the last word and that's what's driving this. They can't resist countering the other's claim - David uses COI, THF uses WP:HARRASS. What results is a very long and circular thread that sucks in completely innocent bystanders, most of whom don't understand what's going on, and in their attempts to explain David and THF go on another round of accusations and counter accusations, frsutrating all who have to read it. The other issue is of course that there are several accusations of COIs going on, which is confusing - whether THF has a COI in view of the fact that he once worked for a pharmaceutical company criticised in Sicko, whether he has a COI related to the fact that he had a piece of journalism published attacking Sicko's ranking as the 4th highest grossing documentary, and then tried to cite his article in both Sicko and 25 other films he mentioned in it, whether his current job means he is incapable of writing in a non-biased manner on Michael Moore (which is not actually something THf has been accused of, but he and some supporters claim he has and he is being targetted for being right wing). There's probably some more COIs I've forgotten.

I think the simplest answer for Arbcom, should they accept this case, is to decide whether THF has a COI or not. If he does, he should stop editing Michael Moore and continue his commendable efforts at WP:BLP/N and other areas of interest (I am surprised he has not written anything on tort reform yet). If he doesn't, fine. Either way, both THF and David should then be ordered not argue with each other outside of their talkpages on pain of blockage. THf can edit, David can photograph. And that will be that, all will be sweetness and light, and I can sleep through the night without waking up to yet another AN/I thread about THF, his article, his edits, his COI, his name, his pet hamster, his favoured hot beverage, his earliest memory...

Statement by David Shankbone

THF

THF, Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute, is here on Misplaced Pages with an agenda not to make articles NPOV, but to make them conservative and, specifically, to attack Michael Moore. His edits and efforts to change pages are disruptive, and violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DISRUPTION.

1. WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV - The genesis of this issue was that User:THF had a problem that Box Office MoJo's rankings of documentaries, used by every mainstream source, lists Sicko at the fourth highest-grossing documentary. THF, who is not a film expert, thought it was wrong that they did not include "documentaries" like Eddie Murphy Raw and Jackass Number Two. So he wrote an article attacking Michael Moore, that his employer published on their website, that also includes a new ranking of docmentaries, and IMAX films (which were not audited until 2005 and included busloads of schoolchildren as paying full price when they pay discounted or free admission). With these new "rankings" Sicko was the 22nd highest-grossing documentary. THF is neither an expert on film, nor are his "new" rankings--which took issue with Box Office Mojo, not with Sicko, although his article is a hit piece on Moore--used anyone. When he spammed this article around the Internet on right-wing websites, even they called into question his inclusion of these films. Then he made the argument that his own OR, that is not used by anyone, should be included on all 25 film articles of those found in his ranking and that it is against policy not to do so. The issue spread to ANI, COIN, several user pages, et. al. THF still sees no problem with adding his own documentary ranking to 25 film articles.
2. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT - In a similar vein, THF created an article, with no sources, to a 9 minute home-made propaganda commercial, Uninsured in America, and then inserted it into the Sicko, Healthcare in the United States and Canadian and American health care systems compared articles. This is an agenda
3. WP:WEIGHT - THF continually reapplies the NPOV tag to Sicko, and the main issue he is currently arguing, amongst others is that we do not include John Stossel's criticism of how the World Health Organization compiles it statistics. Moore is mentioned in half a sentence, and not critically. The criticism is directed at the WHO, which has nothing to do with the film's use of widely-used statistics but the premiere international body that does such reporting.
4. WP:DISRUPTION - After THF's Michael Moore attack piece was published, Moore noted--did not attack--that THF is, in fact, Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute (a fact THF had on his User page for a year) and that he edited Moore's Sicko article 95 times. Because of this, THF instigated an effort to have all references to MichaelMoore.com completely removed from Misplaced Pages. Go HERE to see the "attack" on THF that spurred edit wars, blocks of user, and tied up ANI for days, because THF wanted it completely de-linked from Misplaced Pages.
5. WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:CIVILITY - THF continually argues with a multitude of editors on a weekly basis, 5 to 10 in the last week alone. He continually quotes policy and guideline that has no bearing. For instance, here is one example of what he calls a "personal attack" and uncivil statement by one editor on his talk page. Clearly, it is neither. THF constantly makes accusations against people that they are vandalizing, being incivil, or attacking him, when none of that is occurring. Look at the example to see. But you have to look at the diff - because THF does not archive his talk page and removes all comments he does not like, which is many many many.
6. WP:COI and WP:NPOV - THF inserted his employer's work on pages, such as on on World Health Organization and John Stossel. Added link to $25 AEI article to Class Action. He created the article about The American (magazine), AEI's publication (that has received scant media coverage, though it survived a good-faith AfD because a few sources were eventually found, the criterion for notability there being 'people mentioned it when it debuted' although nobody has recently talked about it; almost all sources basically only talk about it when they started). He created disambiguation page, The_American, to include it on there and also created a new section American's diambig to include the magazine on there, though another editor removed it. But there was already an article entitled The American Magazine, and when I put that on the disambiguation page, THF removed it. On Jim Hood he took a relatively innocuous article and added an {NPOV} tag to it directing readers to the Talk page, where he supplied sources to criticism he wrote (instead of improving the article with criticism from sources other than himself). Also on Jim Hood he changed , , , the wording "With the backing of many citizens from across the state..." to the POV "With the backing of many wealthy tort lawyers..." and then edit warred over it, including with uncited "Some have alleged" language, which I suppose is his own material found on the Talk page (a round-about way to make mainspace edits). On his ideological 'tort reform' comrade's page, Robert Bork, he removed a pertinent news piece about Bork bringing a frivolous 'slip and fall' tort lawsuit (because "No one is going to remember the Yale Club lawsuit a dozen years from now." WP:CRYSTAL), changed the definition of "to Bork" from a neutral one to a definition fraught with POV language used by conservative columnist William Safire and also changed POV wording to his own POV wording.
7. Legal threats and spurious accusations - I never once threatened THF, and I explained that here, yet he still makes spurious accusations and misuses the law (I went to law school as well) to try and back himself up.
8. The use of his name - I actually never rubbed THF's name in his face. For a year he was User:TedFrank, with the introduction on his User page, "My name is Ted Frank, and I work at the American Enterprise Institute." I used his real name back when he was using it himself, just like someone calling me "David" or "David Shankbone." Two-thirds of the way through the Sicko argument he changed his User name and it took some adjusting. It would be like if I all of sudden demanded everyone call me DSB. I mean, I think for a lot of people, especially those involved in discussions over issues with me, it wouldn't magically happen. But then that left the issue of his public dispute with Moore under his real name, and it became increasingly difficult to avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the room of who he was, and the fact he was, in fact, trying to insert material he wrote. But I wasn't casting about his name like a child leaving breadcrumbs in the woods.
9. There are many arguments THF has raised against me he has not supported, including the one above. He also said two other editors were 'wantonly' using his name---which a day later, he restored a "notable Wikipedian" template himself, saying "I have nothing to hide" - huh? Is anyone else confused over whether we can we use his name or not?---and I think since THF had so many arguments going at once with so many people, over the same issues, I am answering for their behavior as well. I do not see many diffs backing up arguments against me, whereas I have supplied quite a few. As Ted Frank told CBS News, "Misplaced Pages....reward persistence over accuracy." The same philosophy appears to be at work with me. Say it enough, it and it becomes true; no need for diffs. Say enough times multiple admins threatened to block me because of my harassment, and it becomes fact. Say enough times I was WP:STALKing, and it becomes fact. Out of the 2,500 pages I have edited on Misplaced Pages, I think THF and I tangled only on about 3/4 articles. However, when I posted my original portrait of Arthur R. Miller, THF somehow created a redirect for Rudolph Perini to his page. When I voted to "Keep" an article (I forget which one, but I can find it if I need to), THF shows up to Delete it. When I am in an RfC over my pubic hair photo, THF starts to comment about it on my Talk page. These are disparate topics. The topics he and I engaged in were all related. When I started to question the totality of THF's edits, I had trouble figuring out where to go. I was constantly told that the place I brought up my issue was the wrong forum, but I was not told, except by THF, that the complaint had no merit. So if that is "forum shopping" then that's what I was doing - trying to find the proper place to have these issues discussed. Issues that, clearly, have merit.
   • THF's latest post "in retirement" says "(and continues to make) tendentious claims that citing to a published article violate NOR, is gloating about the scalp he got on his user page, is posting taunting photos of me, and no one enforced the rules" I couldn't figure out for the life of me what he meant by his "scalp" (although he proved me right, he still sees no problem with his OR). Then I realized that I received a "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar from User:KP Botany for raising this issue. This is a good example of how THF twists things to suit his agenda, which here is against me. I post a barnstar I received, which I always do, and suddenly I am "gloating about the scalp I got", nevermind it is KP Botany's statement, it's my gloat. What this is evidence of is that THF twists things to suit himself. This has been part of the problem. Again, I point to the diff above I provided as an example of what THF considers a personal attack from User:Guettarda
   • Response to THF's 2nd Retirement post - I do not believe THF has any intention of leaving; more, he doesn't want his behavior examined. THF has been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know that retirees don't typically leave all their information on the Talk page and User page, and continue to chime in on the ArbCom board. His Retirement is more a threat and the ability to say the ArbCom went forward in abstentia so that he can later deny the validity of any conclusions. Since THF threatened to take me to ArbCom several times, I do not know what his issue is now that we are here. It would seem this is an excellent opportunity to sort everything, and show me the righteousness of his edits. Instead, we have Watcher in the Woods posts that show he has not, in fact, left but is following the entire episode closely. So why not participate instead of making legal accusations (false ones - my goodness, what do they teach at the University of Chicago these days?) and raising suggestive notions that I am "creepily" reading his blog too much. That was a laugh. Nothing is further from the truth: I find it self-aware ("My cousin Garance beat me into Misplaced Pages by a few months, but her article is only a paragraph. Our million-book-selling aunt and newspaperman grandfather have no Misplaced Pages entries.") and self-infatuated--("Wikiality II: I am precocious - Did you know that I wrote a book on business communication when I was ten years old?"), and I find the manufactured conversations with "Slim" a hackneyed device (and a little embarrassing). No, THF, I won't be a regular reader outside of this ArbCom...trust me...

Hypnosadist

This editor should be part of the ArbCom and the conversation. Hypnosadist thrust himself into this issue on behalf of THF and continually argued that we should bring lawsuits against Michael Moore, Comedy Central and Stephen Colbert. He argued against consensus in determining attack sites because "people like michael moore have so many fans they just say its ok to do anything to a right-wing wikipedian." HypnoSadist edited out comments over articles that THF had tried himself to have put into Misplaced Pages, the documentary list, citing that this was "Harassment" when it was pertinent to the discussion. He went as far as removing Ted Frank from comments when it was about the article, and then edit warred over it. His contributions to the discussion elevated it to obscene levels, such as when he said here that "like the death penalty this is a digital choice with only two incompatable possibilties. This means there is no middle ground to find, you are either for or against the death penalty, you either decide to protect wikipedia and its editors or you throw them both to the dogs." The discourse was already tense and controversial, with the backdrop of Michael Moore's website, and Hypno's advocacy on behalf of THF raised the irrationality to new heights.

David Shankbone

1. I do not take issue where THF is an expert, such as when he twice cites a blog article he wrote on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Nor editing articles directly related to his defense of Merck in the Vioxx lawsuit, including Rofecoxib and Multiple chemical sensitivity. Here, he is an expert and his edits are welcome. This contrasts with his lack of expertise in film, documentaries, etc.
2. Regarding my own behavior: I make no assertion I am 100% correct or that I could not have handled the situation better. I have never encountered a situation like this before on all my time on Misplaced Pages and found it exhausting and I found some of the support for THF's proposals, especially in regard to his new documentary ranking, bewildering when these were clear violations of many of our policies and guidelines, as outlined above. But I am more than happy to hear advice on how to better handle a situation such as this in the future. I'm no saint.
3. I do, however, have examples of my own good faith. Articles I did portraits for and created when I was a newbie a year ago, Ben Georgia and Andrea Masley, I initiated speedy deletes against because in hindsight these people aren't notable. I know Megan McArdle and did her portrait, but did a "weak delete" on her AfD because her notability was marginal. I included criticism about Michael Moore on reality film. I gave THF a barnstar, found on his User page. I offered to help THF get a better controversy section crafted on Sicko. The only edits I made to Ted Frank were to put in two sources and correct an awkwardly-worded sentence. I offered to do his portrait; he clearly enjoyed having his own Misplaced Pages article based upon his blog musings. Even though I love Al Franken I insisted his drug use be included in his article.I congratulated someone when they replaced my Catwalk photo with a better one. I voted to keep Controversies over the film Sicko, something User:Noroton thanked me about on my Talk page. The list goes on...
4. I admit, I would be sad to see THF go, but I would definitely not be sad to see his disruptive agenda go, if he were to retire. We can use him, but it appears THF consistently makes the argument that we must take the good with the bad. For all the admins that threatened to block me, there is not one message to that effect on my talk page, and not one diff supplied by THF. In fact, he supplies very few diffs. Only links to policies and guidelines. THF seems to be saying in his threatened retirement that if we don't let him do what he wants, he will go. He doesn't even want his behavior examined, behavior that he thinks is so righteous. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will abide by any decision. I invited two people to make statements that have dealt with THF. THF is welcome to invite all these admins and editors who have warned me to make statements.

Response to ATren

1. ATren - Nobody is punishing THF for disclosing his identity, but he also is not to be rewarded with carte blanche because he has done so. We are not rewarding him for being forthright - it's simply the correct thing to do. What is interesting is that User:ATren has created a blog attacking another Misplaced Pages user, User:Avidor, using his real name. It's called "Weiner Watch" and rails against him for his viewpoints. From ATren's User page: "I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch" where I analyze and debunk the fraudulent claims made by Ken Avidor about PRT. Some have erroneously claimed I am attacking Avidor on this blog - I strongly disagree. I attack only his claims, which are provably false, and his tactics, which are just plain dirty. Nothing personal." This most certainly is not the kind of behavior I think is appropriate amongst Misplaced Pages editors, nor would I ever engage in so much time to harass someone off-wiki, or on. This boils down to THF's agenda on Misplaced Pages, and his unwillingness to not partake in it despite multiple requests from a broad variety of editors to please stop if not COI edits, then the "appearance of COI" that follows him.

• This is not an attack, it's factual. I highlight this because there is so much inconsistency in the logic and arguments on the side that supports THF, and because this is conduct that is unbecoming any Misplaced Pages user, and not the kind I engage in. It speaks for itself. The thing goes back a year!

Statement by THF

I object to this arbitration request, from the title on down.

This is a user-to-user dispute, and a one-sided one: DavidShankbone has systematically harassed me over the last month--including sending off-wiki threats using the Misplaced Pages e-mailer that quite frankly violated United States federal law (18 USC § 875). When I clerked, I saw people go to jail for less, but I was so motivated by the spirit of WP:COOL that I made the mistake of accepting David's insincere apology that consisted mostly of continuing to attack me for wrongdoing. This can be resolved without RFA intervention if admins simply enforce existing policies and guidelines against WP:HARASS the same way they do when it is left-wing editors who are being harassed.

Guy's request has many factual mistakes and omissions:

• He incorrectly characterizes my job, which has nothing to do with Moore.
• He omits the fact that not once has COI/N found a problem with my mainspace edits, even on the two occasions I reported myself for guidance. See, e.g., WP:COI/N#Sicko.
• He omits the fact that I did not write a free-lance article about Sicko until after I had participated in the Sicko page edits for over a month (including three consecutive RFCs that agreed that Moore partisans were incorrect to revert edits that I made).
• He omits the fact that my request for information about the attacksite policy was hijacked by several other editors (including David), and that I unilaterally asked people to stop fighting about it, even as several admins continued to fight and support the idea of a delisting. I even defended the block of an editor who edit-warred to remove references to the moore site.
• He omits the fact that after multiple admins told David to not mention me again or he would be blocked for harassment, David made fifteen edits in under 20 hours attacking me on ANI and canvassing on a user-talk page, without any admin taking action other than threatening me not to respond to the false allegations David was making against me. Even now he is canvassing.

JzG's proposal is that the fact that a blogger working for the subject of an article made an off-wiki criticism of the fact that I edited the article, I have an intractable COI. It positively isn't the case that subjects of articles get to dictate who edits them by criticizing them off-wiki.

DavidShankbone has created massive disruption by repeatedly complaining for three weeks that I made a proposed edit on a talk-page that never resulted in any mainspace edits. There were 54 comments in that discussion, and I made 9 of them. David made 17 comments, another 7, two others 6 each, with the other 9 split up among several editors. Consensus was reached against my proposed edit after an RFC that I closed on 10 August, three weeks ago. (David accuses me of trying to put my article on 25 pages. The "25 pages" allegation comes in response to a talk-page argument that if the cite about 25 films was put on one page, why not put it on 25 pages, and I agreed with that assessment.) The talk-page content dispute resulted in a COIN complaint, and the consensus of that was that I did not violate COI by making a talk-page request, which is exactly what WP:COI says to do. In the aftermath, there was extensive discussion at WT:COI, and a proposed change to the COI guideline to restrict talk-page discussion, explicitly aimed at me, was overwhelmingly rejected. I closed the RFC myself on 10 August. The only reason anyone is still discussing it is because three weeks later, David continues to forum-shop the complaint on over twelve different pages, despite not once anyone finding any wrongdoing on my part, and having failed to achieve a change in guidelines to prevent my nine talk-page comments in support of a proposed edit. He now has the gall to complain that my actions are disruptive, when the disruption is entirely of his own creation. (And, ironically, after spending so much effort to argue against any inclusion of my article about Moore on the grounds that the opinion wasn't notable, David, though he was in an ongoing dispute with me, edited the Ted Frank article to include it.)

I shouldn't have to defend this manufactured controversy for a twelfth time here, when the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee has already ruled on this issue:

• 5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Misplaced Pages, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, especially Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine and Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

Passed 8-0

• 6) The policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground by undue focus on Misplaced Pages articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Passed 8-0

1. The arbitration request is effectively a heckler's veto. User:Cberlet is doing fine editing articles about subjects in which he is paid to write about his opinions and in which he has a strong point of view, in part because when people repeatedly accuse him of COI without addressing content, they are blocked. The question is whether the same principles can also be applied to permit right-wing editors to focus on editing an encyclopedia instead of defending themselves against people violating WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This was never treated as a close question before (the BabyDweezil CSN ban !vote was 11-1), and I still don't understand why it is being treated as a close question now that requires RFA intervention. If the straightforward policies were being applied evenly, there would be no need for arbitration.
2. WP:COI is also straightforward, and I haven't violated it. Are controversial experts welcomed at Misplaced Pages, or not? I've only "violated" a version of the COI guideline that doesn't exist, has been consistently rejected at WP:COI when people try to expand the scope of that guideline, and isn't applied against Cberlet, or WMC, or any of the multitude of other non-right-wing editors who attract people unfairly accusing them of violating COI when there isn't POV-pushing. I'm here as a hobby. I've been a productive editor, and I've been careful to participate in a number of Misplaced Pages administrative tasks, and cleaning up articles and mediating disputes like Andijan massacre and Richard Rossi where I have no interest so that there is no question of me being a SPA. (Compare Cberlet's or WMC's edit histories to mine: Cberlet (talk · contribs · count); William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · count); THF (talk · contribs · count)). Am I wrong to expect that a right-wing thinktank fellow who writes about trial lawyers should be treated the same way and with the same courtesy as a left-wing thinktank fellow who writes about the Christian right (and makes 103 edits to Christian right) or the same way an opinion writer for Environmental Media Services is permitted to edit controversial articles about people he has written for EMS about? If I am, I'm happy to leave: what attracted me to Misplaced Pages was NPOV, and if that core principle is just spin and there isn't any intent of enforcing rules neutrally, I don't want to be here.
3. Not only is Misplaced Pages not a battlefield, but I don't want it to be one: if I am going to spend time writing legal briefs and compiling evidence, I want it to be on a more important subject than whether I should spend time on a hobby--I just turned down an opportunity to write a Supreme Court amicus brief on the dormant commerce clause because of other deadlines, and I'd have trouble spending time looking in the mirror if I was instead spending weeks at an Arbcom when no one in earlier dispute resolution ever identified a single mainspace diff that violated Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. I'm not a neo-Nazi or a Velikovskian: I have political views well within mainstream American political thought. And if being within the American conservative mainstream means that whether I should be treated with civility is a debatable proposition that I need to spend time defending in an arbitration, then that speaks far worse about Misplaced Pages than about me, and I'll get more real-life writing done instead. If this goes forward, I retire. I was here to edit an encyclopedia, not play David's games. THF 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum in response to JzG addition

JzG says this arbitration is needed because of "valid concerns" over "his promotion of his novel rating system for documentaries".

At 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC), I made an editing suggestion at Talk:Sicko. Shankbone responded by trying to delete the comment. After failing to censor the discussion, (and trying to GAME the discussion by bringing a frivolous AFD against the magazine that published my piece) it was discussed, with Shankbone and others committing various violations of NPA and CIVIL (e.g., ), that I was forced to respond to to correct a number of false statements Shankbone made arguing against inclusion; I made a total of nine comments in response to David's 17 comments. After an RFC, I closed the discussion myself less than 60 hours later. I made no mainspace edits.

While the talkpage discussion was going on, there was a full airing of the discussion at COI/N, where it was conclusively determined that the concerns were not valid, because I did precisely what WP:COI said I should do. David, not satisfied, took it to ANI several times, took it to several talk pages, took it to VPP and to CSN, sent me threatening email through the Misplaced Pages emailer, was told several times to stop badgering me,(e.g., + several admins on ANI and at COIN) and yet we're still discussing my conduct. David violated WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:STALK, made a tendentious and retaliatory AFD, made (and continues to make) tendentious claims that citing to a published article violate NOR, is gloating about the scalp he got on his user page, is posting taunting photos of me, and no one enforced the rules.

Why is an editing suggestion over documentary rankings that lasted a couple of days on an article talk page (and had support from multiple editors) and eventually resulted in a compromise change to the text of an article made by other editors more disruptive and in need of administrative intervention than three weeks of badgering a user over that content dispute long after it was over? Again, that Shankbone was allowed to get away with such incivility and pestering, and that anyone thinks that further harassment of me is the appropriate way to resolve this, speaks very very poorly for Misplaced Pages. This isn't a close case who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

Like I did say before, Misplaced Pages rewards persistence over accuracy. David has made disruptively false accusations of violating COI and disruption against me over a dozen times, when he knows perfectly well that I complied with WP:COI, since his attempt to change the rules so he could retroactively condemn me was rejected. Admins, instead of enforcing the rules against harassment, are taking his allegations seriously after DR resolved them and after there is no content dispute. I'm not putting up with further harassment, because even if I get judged fairly in this arbitration, others will learn from David's example that they can harass an editor and prevent them from editing by diverting them into frivolous arbitrations with impunity. This could have been resolved two weeks ago when David first started exhibiting signs of vendetta, and it is appalling that there are admins who have encouraged it. THF 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum in response to Shankbone addition

I want to leave Misplaced Pages, yet Shankbone continues to harass me with new and bogus claims that have nothing to do with any article he participated in. His latest claim, that I added the words "wealthy trial lawyers" to the Jim Hood article, veers into libel. I was not the one who added that language. The only thing I did was revert an anon SPA's repeated whitewash of the article (done without discussion by the SPA on the talkpage) and add a cite to a true claim about the relationship between Scruggs and Hood (noted by a federal district judge) that the anon objected to. I have no relationship to Jim Hood. COI is about self-promotion, and one can see that, although not a single talk-page participant objected to my addition of notable points of view about Hood, I did not add a cite to myself. The anon actually had a COI: it was an IP from Hood's office who deleted criticism of Hood made by a federal judge investigating a criminal contempt that is being prosecuted now. We can thus see how much Shankbone cares about the COI guideline and truth, and how much he cares about his vendetta against me. I put an NPOV tag on the article so that a neutral editor could evaluate it. If we had an NPOV/N board, I would have simply reported it, but no such board exists, so the tag is the only way to signal a problem.

Shankbone's allegations about The American and WHO and the real-name usage are similarly fictional retellings that omit facts. Shankbone knows his accounts are misleading there, because he participated in the events and responded to my explanations. This is the harassment more than anything Hypno complains about: having someone WP:STALK me through Misplaced Pages, making multiple false statements about me using my real name in multiple forums that I am forced to rebut before someone believes them and repeats them. And because Shankbone treats stalking me as a full-time job (judging by the number of hits from 67.102.*.* on my personal website, which, while perfectly legal, is kind of creepy), and I treat Misplaced Pages as a hobby, I can't compete. THF 09:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum and request to arbitrators

I object to Shankbone's apparent intent to go through all 7000+ of my edits looking for ones he can misrepresent as bad. Arbitration requires other methods of dispute resolution to be exhausted first, and my edits to Robert Bork and Jim Hood were uncontroversial edits that did not violate consensus. Shankbone is taking them out of context now, and simply posting a diff and falsely claiming that the diff violated policy to force a defender to spend twenty minutes explaining the rationale for the edit is both harassment and a simple content dispute that does not belong in arbitration. The Bork article violated NPOV and BLP: I fixed it, adding sources, adding both pro and con information, discussing some of the changes on the talk page first, and have no shame in my edits, which no established editor ever objected to before today. (Note, as COI goes, I took out on 24 August a cite to me writing about Bork that another editor added, after first discussing it on the talk page on August 20. The paragraph violated BLP, NPOV, and WEIGHT. There were no objections to the edit on the talkpage or mainspace. Note that one of Shankbone's diffs is again to the talk page: the fact that I sought consensus on an edit is something he seeks to have condemned and forces me to waste time defending.) I do object to Shankbone continuing to lie about my edits and seeking to raise a content dispute that wasn't even a dispute to arbitration.

I've had multiple admins and arbitrators invite me to return to Misplaced Pages. Yet the reason I left was the fact that the rules are being enforced unevenly, and long-established principles about "undue focus" and harassment are ignored. And the last couple of days suggests that my decision to leave was the correct one. Now that arbs have accepted the arbitration, Shankbone is seeking to impermissibly expand the scope of the arbitration beyond what the arbitrators agreed to with additional frivolous allegations to further burden me. And he is doing so with impunity, without anyone saying word one.

I followed the rules, and established through the consensus of an RFC that competition law violated NPOV, was factually inaccurate, and needed to be entirely rewritten. The POV-pushing editor (working in conjunction with Shankbone ) who brought a frivolous COIN complaint against me on that article took less than 24 hours to completely undo all the tags and return the page to its policy-violative state -- and he did so against consensus. He continued to be ludicrously uncivil to me after he was warned. Yet my edits are being investigated and David's meat-puppet User:Wikidea hasn't even been made a party.

If we're going to expand this arbitration beyond any reasonable scope, let's look at the fact that Shankbone has made hundreds of self-promotional edits on Misplaced Pages, even edit-warring with editors who objected to inappropriate photos he posted. WP:KETTLE comes to mind with his overbroad application of COI rules beyond what the rules say. If it's inappropriate for me to suggest on a talk-page that an article I wrote be cited to, why is it appropriate for Shankbone to edit-war in mainspace? The answer is that Shankbone doesn't care about COI: he cares about WP:GAMEing the system to harass someone he is in a content-dispute with. And admins, instead of intervening, are aiding and abetting.

Shankbone's single-mindedness on this has extended to editing the Ted Frank article to violate WP:WEIGHT to make it seem that a single paragraph I published criticizing Michael Moore was one of the most important things I ever wrote--even though it was published by a publication that Shankbone has repeatedly stated is not notable and even attempted to delete from Misplaced Pages. No one is enforcing WP:POINT, either, even though Shankbone dishonestly tricked an admin to think that my job is "to write about Michael Moore."

There are already rules in place dealing with this--including rules against retaliatory edits to mainspace pages dealing with the editor with whom one is having a content dispute with. What is there to arbitrate? Just enforce the rules that are already there! If people want to change the COI policy, take it to VPP and WT:COI, and get a new consensus, and I would have followed the new rules just as I followed the current ones. The only possible reason for this arbitration is if there are going to be different rules for right-wingers than there already exist for left-wing writers in precisely identical circumstances. Because that double-standard has been made abundantly clear, and POV-pushers now know that it is acceptable to harass right-wingers, I take my leave of Misplaced Pages. THF 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Several months ago, I encountered THF in an earlier dispute concerning an alleged conflict of interest involving him. At the time, I gave him some general advice and told him to let me know if there were any further issues. Awhile later, he mentioned to me that a couple of threads had arisen on the conflicts of interest noticeboard concerning his editing of competition law and asked me to opine there. At that time, it appeared to me that THF was doing the right thing in confining his edits to talkpages when addressing issues as to which he might be perceived as having a borderline COI. Others' opinions on the threads were more divided but there was probably a consensus, if not a unanimous one, that THF's editing at that stage was acceptable.

I have not had a chance to follow in as much detail the recent controversies concerning THF's editing of the Michael Moore film Sicko. I can see a more arguable case for that being a potential COI problem than the earlier editing. On the other hand, we must be clear in evaluating potential conflicts of interest that we do not disqualify anyone who self-identifies with a body of non-wikipedia writing or a personal point of view from editing. There are distinctions to be drawn between matters arising from an editor's personal socio-economic or political views, which fall within the NPOV policy, and financial or allied interests that trigger the COI policy.

A related question is whether even apart from COI, THF's, or for that matter David Shankbone's, edits significantly violated NPOV. Still another question is whether even if THF's editing allegedly crossed the line, whether in an isolated instance or more seriously, whether David's single-minded determination and pursuit of the issue was itself excessive. There have certainly been times when I had the feeling that one or two editors averse to THF's editing were becoming a bit too close in mode of operation to Inspector Javert.

This group of issues would benefit from consideration from some of Misplaced Pages's most experienced and decided editors. That consideration typically occurs on a policy talkpage, but if in this instance it needs to occur in front of the arbitrators, then so be it. Solving a controversy that has generated this much heat and attention is within the ArbCom's reasonable role, although I agree with those who have written above that plausible outcomes here do not include sanctions such as the blocking or banning of any editor. More generally, we cannot set a policy that subject-matter experts in contentious fields are barred from editing even if they commit to try to follow NPOV.

With respect to the issue of use of THF's real-world name and affiliation, despite the fact that he revealed these himself (in a laudible explanation of his potential COI in the first instance), common courtesy would suggest that if the user now wants to be referred to as THF rather than via another name, that should be respected wherever possible, and gratuitous mention of any other version of his name should be avoided. On the other hand, if the COI issues are going to be resolved, some further mentions of his name and affiliation may, unfortunately, be unavoidable. Under no circumstances should these be thrown in his face with an attitude of "ha ha, you have no ability to be anonymous anymore" which has occasionally cropped up in the past couple of weeks.

At the end of the day it is well within the arbitrators' discretion whether to take this case, but if they do, I agree with THF that it must not degenerate into a political free-for-all spewing all sorts of allegations and rhetoric in all directions, but should be narrowly focused on the specific issues raised. It certainly should not be a quasi-legal proceeding lasting for months; THF is assuredly right that he has enough of that sort of thing to deal with in his day job, as do some of the rest of us. But Guy is right that someone, whether the arbitrators or administrators elsewhere, needs to cut the Gordian knot and address this situation soon. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Update in light of THF's departure

THF has now stated that he is retiring from Misplaced Pages rather than be dragged into an arbitration case. I regret this decision, as I believe he could have continued making valuable contributions (perhaps on different articles from the one he has been editing recently), but I respect it. I suggest that this case now be withdrawn or declined, as it really would not be appropriate for it to proceed under the circumstances. Newyorkbrad 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if he's really gone. Fred Bauder 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are issues that should be addressed regardless of whether he stays or leaves. ATren 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do too. His behavior is not the main issue. Fred Bauder 19:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ATren

I have a lot to say on this matter, but I will try to keep it brief:

• I have repeatedly requested specific diffs that show abuse by THF, and nobody has yet produced such a diff. There have been some vague accusations of POV editing, but nothing that would raise an eyebrow if they were edits by an anonymous user.
• THF did not pursue the matter of on-Wiki anonymity. He initially inquired about delinking Michael Moore's site because his photo and personal info were on the top of the front page with a clear motive of intimidation of a Misplaced Pages editor - and that usually is grounds for delinking. But he did not pursue the matter - on the contrary, Noroton, I and others were the ones pursuing the case, and he even explicitly requested us to stop. The entire drama was further exacerbated by several editors spuriously using THF's name in what appeared to be WP:POINT violations, which seemed to annoy THF - but again, THF backed off when it was apparent that some editors (notably, User:Cyde) refused to stop using his real name.
• Based on my recent experience with COI, it appears that the policy is increasingly being used as a tool in content disputes - in order to silence the other side of a content debate. I believe that this case is a perfect illustration of this pattern, by virtue of there being almost no evidence of actual abuse by THF. From what I can tell, the only thing THF did wrong was honestly disclose his identity.
• We should not be punishing users who disclose their viewpoints. Again, I return to the fact that THF's edit history would not have raised such a ruckus if he hadn't disclosed his identity and affiliations. Until I see real evidence of abuse, the only conclusion I can make is that we are punishing this user for his disclosure, and rewarding those who relentlessly pursue the COI complaint without showing any evidence of abuse. ATren 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding this comment by David Shankbone: my long standing conflict with Avidor has absolutely no relevance to this case, and if anything, the fact that David has alluded to that conflict in his statement only serves to demostrate the "attack the editor" mentality that has fueled this conflict from the start. ATren 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And he continues to try to make an issue out of an unrelated conflict I had with an uninvolved editor. ATren 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• In response to smb's statement below: I think the problem here is that some editors continue to confuse having a POV with pushing a POV. smb claims that "it is the totality of THF's edits... that gives cause for serious concern" - but this misses the point entirely. It's certainly no secret what THF's point of view is - he's openly disclosed it - and it's no surprise that his edits tend to align with his stated POV. But that does not automatically make them abusive edits. Many of the diffs smb provides are talk page debates; others are mainspace edits that are backed by sources (whether the sources are reliable is debatable, but similar kinds of sources are commonly used elsewhere so it's certainly not an open-and-shut question). Indeed, many of the points that are raised on this page are actually issues that THF conceded weeks ago after discussion showed he was in the minority. I fail to understand why they continue to be an issue when THF has conceded them weeks ago. ATren 20:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

It appears to me (and very likely appears to non-Wikipedians) that the timing of this arbitration request has a great deal to do with the recent action taken by Michael Moore's website. So the likely effect of opening the case at this juncture would be to encourage other website owners who single out individual Wikipedians. ArbCom has ruled before that it cannot regulate actions taken elsewhere on the Internet. By the same token, it ought not to let such actions force its hand. I wrote to Michael Moore's webmaster when that site singled out this Wikipedian, and in my message I cited a previous RFC where I had responded with a post that had been fairly sympathetic to Michael Moore. The site never replied: to the best of my knowledge they are making no attempt to work within Misplaced Pages's venues. This belongs in regular dispute resolution; please reject the proposal. Durova 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SamBC

I agree with the sentiments that this will end up in arbitration sooner or later, although that is made somewhat moot by User:THF's self-declared retirement. I also agree that it should never have ended up in this position, however. A while back, I came into contact with THF through a COI/N discussion which seemed to be missing the point of COI; that is, those accusing THF were missing the point. However, THF was also being notably incivil, as were his accusers. I would characterise the overall result of that discussion, as it pertained to THF, as not finding any breach of the COI guidelines, nor NPOV or similar in relation to any COI. However, the feeling seemed to be that THF was working 'near the edge'. I would agree with that view, at the time. Since then, I have not been shown any diff showing any tendentious editing by THF, and far more POV-pushing from left-wingers (a term which I proudly apply to myself). I might be personally disgusted by THF's political views, but they're not unusual in America, or the world in general, and NPOV says they have a place in wikipedia articles where they are relevant, and have reliable sources. I'd always assumed that the left-wing bias of wikipedia is that us lefty types are more likely to participate in such things, support free software and free content, and so on. However, a right-winger turns up, tries to supplement articles with relevant right-wing POV, and gets nothing but grief, despite (or perhaps because of) abiding by COI guidelines and discussing edits in advance. What makes this really worrying is that no one seems to think this is a problem, or at least very few people. DavidShankbone seems to pursue THF, ready to revert or report at the slightest sign of material he objects to. I feel that, if this arbitration goes ahead, it should also include the behaviour of DavidShankbone. SamBC(talk) 03:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, please, move this to a case and let's get going before the two main parties escalate into too much more of a war of words, please? SamBC(talk) 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tbeatty

Firstly, there is simply no COI by THF editing Michael Moore articles or articles on Michael Moore movies. He has no interest in the success or failure of Michael Moore. Only in the broadest political sense of left vs. right do they conflict on ideas and if that's a conflict of interest than anyone who is part of a Union or who voted would have a COI. THF is critical of Michael Moore. That does not mean there is a conflict of interest. Secondly, the timing of all the hub bub about THF coinciding with his mention on Michael Moores website for his real world job raises questions about editors being proxies for Michael Moore. THF has been open about his professional affiliation for a while. But only after being mentioned negatively with respect to Wikipeida on MM's website did his Misplaced Pages biography resurface and these accusations of COI come to a head. Editors that bring off-wiki disputes to Wikipeida with the purpose of trying to intimidate or stop editors from participation should be strongly cautioned and/or sanctioned. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. --Tbeatty 03:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Smb

I would like to make a comment, if permitted (though my remarks are reproduced because I don't have the ability to find new words to express the same thoughts). I agree with David when he observes and says it is the totality of THF's edits -- his agenda, disruptive editing, and warring with other users -- that gives cause for serious concern. That agenda, even when he appears to be editing farther afield, often comes back to the same thing: Michael Moore and Sicko. Allow me to elaborate (with some examples and diffs).

THF frequently suggests that there is some left-wing conspiracy afoot, a systematic problem in Misplaced Pages "where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics." To get some measure of this, he considers Reuters News Agency to be left-wing. And his politics occasionally spills over into edit summaries Sixteen times he mentions the 'left-wing' on Sicko's talk page. At one point Bi kindly requested he stop because such "comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Misplaced Pages is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria."

THF has compared Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle on four separate occasions. They should be considered and treated the same, he argues. Three editors remarked on this, and each one (Ryan Delaney, Viriditas and myself) rejected the comparison. On this occasion it was pointed out to him that Moore had been upfront about his starting point. Not so the director of TGGWS. Moore maintains there are many excellent qualities in socialist systems (fact) and these should form the backbone of a new non-profit American system (opinion). That's partly what his film is about -- highlighting the good things and making people aware of the alternatives. The Great Global Warming Swindle, on the other hand, is opinion masquerading as science. Durkin's film championed research that was sneered at by peer review journals, and in many cases rejected. The production team were found to have altered scientific charts and graphs, etc etc. Perhaps something about this makes him mad. I'm not certain. THF's bulletin list of 'omitted Sicko criticisms' (found here) rapidly descends into farce on this very point. I'll try to explain quickly. Moore makes a fleeting reference to the number of uninsured people at the beginning of Sicko, but then proceeds to say the film isn't really about them; rather, it's more about those who have cover but find themselves getting into all sorts of difficulty when they require medical assistance. According to the notes and sources on Moore's website, the uninsured figure came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov). Clinton used these statistics. President Bush uses them. Yet, on his list, THF wants to turn this into another criticism of Sicko because there happens to be a non-governmental report that says the number of uninsured is lower. Take a moment to consider this in view of THF's artificial comparison (above). Moore cited a widely circulated peer-reviewed report, yet because THF found a study that says the figure is lower, he wants to make this a direct criticism not of the official body that produced the report, but of Sicko. Moore can't win. (Incidentally, figures released only two days ago from the US Census Bureau corroborate those of the CDC.) And the same is true of the United Nations World Health Organisation. Moore cites one of their reports after criticising Hillary Clinton. The WHO is a credible organisation that produces independent reporting. Take a stab at which Misplaced Pages page THF has recently been editing with a view to making the same criticism stick on Sicko? It all leads back to Michael Moore and his film on health-care reform.

THF even created a new page for Uninsured in America, a nine-minute infomercial (for want of a better description) that barely registers on any radar. (This infomercial advocates privatised health-care.) It doesn't even merit an entry on IMDb. It has obvious notability issues yet not only did THF go ahead and create a page for it on August 5 at 18:05 , but five-minutes later at 18:10, he is found embedding a link to it on Sicko. This is not a good example of an editor providing fluid access to existing Misplaced Pages content.

And in addition to the Sicko criticism piece he had published in The American, THF said in August that "rather than research and write a section on factual inaccuracies on Sicko for Misplaced Pages, I'm going to research, write, and try to sell such a piece for wider publication." I think that is for the best, because several of the criticisms he is stretching to make here don't belong in an encyclopedia. To this extent I can understand David Shankbone's very real concern. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. smb 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iamunknown

THF may or may not have a "conflict of interest" as defined by the relevant guideline. Clearly there is disagreement among editors. I wonder, however, what the general public would think. I know that Misplaced Pages does not do everything that the general public does (esp. regarding biographies and notability), but our perception as neutral is important, and outside opinions should be considered.

The disagreement over the conflict of interest guideline is apparently created in part by recent Arbitration Committee rulings (mentioned above), which seem contradictory. I hope the Committee will clarify, the following points in particular:

• (1) How strictly is WP:COI to be interpreted?
• (2) To what extent does someone who conflates their Real Life job and editing habits have a conflict of interest, and under what circumstances is this an unacceptable editing behaviour?
• (3) Should editors with a conflict of interest be banned from or encouraged to contribute solely to talk pages of the relevant wiki-areas, or should some other option be considered which does not force them to hide their alleged conflict of interest?

I don't think that the issue of THF's full name, which no one is using any longer, or the MM.com debacle, which seems resolved as "no consensus to list as an attack site", should be addressed.

Hope this helps, Iamunknown 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker

Let me express my thoughts bullet-style.

• THF willingly used his full name for editing Misplaced Pages for a duration of time. This cannot be changed.
• As it has been demonstrated, his full name is known by people. Again, this cannot be changed.
• THF has asked that people stop using his name, and part of it involves his name change to "THF". If he does not wish to be referred to by his full name, then we should respect that wish.
• THF is right to feel uncomfortable if someone calls him by his full name. That is not license for him to behave wildly or respond with personal attacks, but it would be a good idea to tell the person who referred to him by his full name to cut it out.

The point? The cat may be out of the bag, but we should still respect his wishes of privacy. MessedRocker (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ThuranX

I have been reading this as it develops on WP:AN/I. I suggested that smb submit his analysis here. I agree with Durova, regarding the timing of this RfAr, as relates to the MM.com mess.

While I find smb's analysis interesting, and having valid points, I am concerned by the impetus for the COI accusations. This isn't a case of some relatively uninvolved editors noting a COI and bringing it to the community's attention. David Shankbone, who I also find to be in many ways a good editor, is using the MM.com stuff, and other venues and events, to push this COI issue. David has an interest in this beyond just pushing out a COI editor; he often edits in a more left leaning manner, and THF's right leaning manner of editing has been noted, even in cases where there's no COI being mentioned. As such, this whole mess has often looked to me to be one side going after the other to gain some perceived foothold, instead of being a purely 'beneficial to the project' action. While I'm not going to accuse David of being deliberately malicious, I do think that somewhere along the line, whether later or initially, personal 'left vs. right' sentiments have gotten into this. Other editors continue to push the same cause-warrior behaviors, on both sides, making this difficult to sort out. However, smb's piece above does show that concerns for COI by other editors are valid. Although I'd like to see DR handle this, it didn't seem to work, and reviewing smb's piece, I hope RfAr can sort this all out, and assure us both editors, valuable in their own rights, can stay somewhere in the project and active. ThuranX 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Crockspot

On August 28 and 29, DavidShankbone made a series of edits to Uninsured in America, Brainwashing 101, Stuart Browning, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination) which appear to me to be retaliatory and agenda-driven WP:POINT violations related to this dispute. I have seen no evidence of tenditious editing by THF to any article. It is my opinion that DavidShankbone is the one who is behaving in a tenditious manner. - Crockspot 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Addendum - I would like to point out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The American (magazine), which tends to show that this effort against THF has been brewing for some time. - Crockspot 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hypnosadist

Davidshankbone has repeatedly violated WP:HARASS by publishing links to sites with THF's real name and posting his real name on talk pages as well, this went on for days while many others helped him. The sole purpose of David over the last month has been to force THF off wikipedia so David has an easier time pushing his POV on wikipedia. The supposed CoI violations is the reason given by david for this, yet he has not taken these issues to the appropriate places on wikipedia insted choosing to link to attack sites(as defined by wp:harass). How this has been turned round into THF being in the wrong is beyond my comprehension. 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that THF has left wikipedia it seems the harassment has worked. The harassment was posting the links on talk pages and AN/I discussions not the link on the micheal moore page, but lets not let facts get in the way shall we. This was just an exercise in forceing an editor off wikipedia and its worked. So arbcom are you going to do something about it? 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule." I implimented that policy to the letter, in good faith I deleted privacy violations from both off-site links and on-site via posts on talk pages. I did so until it was decided that this policy did not apply and said i should stop or be blocked. I stopped! I had not interreacted with any parties after that dispute until this started, i legitamately post on here and then all of a sudden i'm added to this process by an admin who has been involved in this case. That is the limit and totality of my defence. As for david saying i think this has been done purely for political reason, hes right i do. I believe that THF has been discriminated against because of his politics, if that is a crime here then i am guilty as charged. 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

The "link to an attack site" that Hypnosadist refers to above was the link to Michael Moore's official site, which was quite properly placed on the article about Moore, where it belongs. Hypnosadist's campaign to force its de-linking as a so-called "attack site" was roundly defeated by consensus of other editors and administrators who involved themselves in that dispute. Several other similar efforts to de-link appropriately-linked sites of various sorts elsewhere under the rejected BADSITES proposal and its offspring have also failed in recent times. *Dan T.* 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The attack site link ban, which had its origins in an earlier ArbCom decision (the infamous MONGO case), has been harmful just about every time that it's been applied. In talk, project, and user pages it has been used to suppress discussion of legitimate criticism of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. In main article space, it has been used to try to get rid of encyclopedically reasonable links such as to the official site of somebody who has an article here, or sources for information in the article. Hopefully, this case can be the ArbCom's chance to kill the monster it created. *Dan T.* 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• This case is noted to be accepted. Should open sometime Monday barring tally changes (negatively). - Penwhale | 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Picaroon has removed the two parties added in after the fourth accept vote. Normally once a case is slated to be opened, no changes is made to the involved party. If you truly wish to add more party, you need to make a motion on the appropriate page when the case is opened. - Penwhale | 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Kirill 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept (Most of the action is at Sicko and Talk:Sicko. Fred Bauder 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga

Initiated by John254 at 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• John254 (talk · contribs) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.

Statement by John254

In the the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff the Arbitration Committee stated that "Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above. Any future administrator action that violates the BLP policy will result in her immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of the Committee." In blatant violation of the Summary deletion of BLPs principle's requirement that articles deleted citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy "must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so", Violetriga unilaterally undeleted a redirect that was deleted citing WP:BLP concerns, then wheel-warred over the deletion (see ). This alone would constitute grounds for the "immediate desyopping" of Violetriga. However, Violetriga has recently engaged in more administrative misconduct: on August 28, 2007, she blocked Bouncehoper, with whom she was engaged in a massive edit war across many articles, using administrative rollback (see , etc) in violation of the blocking policy, which expressly prohibits administrators from "block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" and prohibits short "cool down blocks", such as the three minute block Violetriga placed against Bouncehoper. It is high time for Violetriga's extensive administrative misconduct to be addressed. John254 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

Um, edit-warring over sophomore<->second is lame. (although I have to say that second is probably more globally accepted). About the BLP redirect... Violetriga was the person that initially REDIRECTED the name to the new article (although naming the person in the article doesn't exactly help?) - Penwhale | 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with AnonEMouse that if the wheel war was the issue, it should've been brought up last month. - Penwhale | 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond to Thatcher, I believe that the only merit in this request is this at best: Has Violetriga violated Remedy 2.1 of the case? Are we fighting over a (un)deletion of redirect? Why was this not brought up last month if it were the case? - Penwhale | 11:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Please reject. Dispute resolution has not been tried here. The RFAR admonishment has nothing to do with the lame "sophomore" edit war, and while it's arguably closer to the redirect, that was over a month ago, and no one has discussed it for weeks. --AnonEMouse 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

A wheel war involves at least two parties. If the wheel warring is going to be an issue in this case, the other participants need to be brought in as parties also. The log demonstrates one admin that did all of the deletions and an admin other than Violetriga that did a restoration. Either add them both as parties and sanction appropriately or drop the whole issue. I recollect discussions at the time, and they would need to be brought into evidence if anyone can find them. (Some are probably on now deleted pages.) GRBerry 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse that this case is probably best rejected. Glad he pointed that out while I was typing my first comment. GRBerry 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved Melsaran

Violetriga seemed to have gotten another (final) chance after the wheel warring incident with JzG. It was over a month ago, and has since been forgotten. Also, the block of Bouncehoper was (indeed) inappropriate, like I pointed out at an ANI thread, but does not have anything to do with this arbitration case. This arbitration case was about BLP undeletions, not inappropriate blocks. Please reject. Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher131

Personally, I feel that Violetriga has seriously breached the community's trust with regards to her admin access several times, and I wouldn't care at all if she were to be desysopped   however, as the request currently stands, it proposes that Violetriga be desysopped because of the admonition in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case. An inappropriate block that doesn't have anything to do with BLP does not fall under that remedy. Also, the userbox thing is irrelevant now, because it was more than a year ago and she wasn't sanctioned; let bygones be bygones. The current request is simply not a valid reason for desysopping. Melsaran (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Violetriga wheel-warred over the deletion of Abhilasha_Jeyarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Note that Violetriga's undeletion of this same article on 30 May was part of the evidence in the previous arbitration case. Violetriga also blocked a user with whom he was edit warring. The block was only 3 minutes, "to get his attention" so he would discuss the dispute, but Violetriga should have involved others. In fact, the whole lame edit war could have been handled by involving additional editors to support (if that was the consensus) Violetriga's position. Violetriga also wheel-warred in the userbox case although no action was taken at this time. Does the Committee endorse Violetriga's continued status as an administrator? Thatcher131 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to look into all recent administrative conduct by Violetriga. She is a longstanding Wikipedian and has made editorial contributions of high quality but I believe her conduct as an administrator has of late been completely unacceptable and has fallen below basic community norms administrators are expected to adhere to. She wheel warred on two occasions as described by Thatcher above. When I raised concerns about Violetriga's conduct in the second incident her reply was "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided". I do not think that such an attitude is acceptable - if other admins comported themselves in this manner the result would be utterly chaotic. There is rarely any great rush - admins actions we disagree with can be reviewed and should be overturned by consensus, and not because another admin judges them "wrong". This latest inappropriate block by Violetriga is part of an ongoing pattern that shows that Violetriga lacks sound judgment as to when to use her administrative tools. I do not think it appropriate for an editor who believes repeated reversal of actions of other admins can be appropriate and blocks (however shortly) those she is engaged in a dispute with to continue to serve as an administrator. WjBscribe 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen

The fact that the redirect to Baby 81 was ultimately kept does not excuse the wheel warring or unrepentant defence of that wheel warring. Daniel Brandt was kept per consensus but Geni remained desysoped, and it now no longer exists as a stand-alone article per consensus but Yanksox is still desysoped - the ultimate fate of the subject matter of the wheel war is clearly not that significant. And the incidents are connected in that they all involve poor judgment as to when to use admin tools. The combination of incidents is now developing into a pattern that seriously calls into question Violetriga's competence as administrator. WjBscribe 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had already taken place before that event, it's just that JzG is allowed to get away with half-hearted deletions that ignore what everyone else has agreed. I didn't expect any other comment from you, to be honest, as you seem to have had it in for me for a while now. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

Thatcher puts his finger on it. Not only has Violetriga done something that she was admonished not to do, she has done it in one of the places explicitly discussed at the time, and as the quote cited above by Wjbscribe shows, she is completely unrepentant, explicitly stating that she thinks it's acceptable to wheel war when you think the other person is wrong. Perhaps someone could find an example of a dispute where either party thinks the other side is't wrong? It seems to me that either Violetriga has not taken the admonition to heart, or it was not clear enough, or it requires further clarification, because a lot of us think it was violated and she clearly doesn't.

Consensus never trumps WP:BLP, nor does it permits use of administrative tools to undo another administrator's actions without discussing the matter first. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga (t)

I just wrote a load but lost it so I'll be brief. The claimed BLP violation came during the BDJ case before the admonishment decision had even passed (got my dates wrong...). I have responded about the claimed unacceptable block on WP:AN/I - the block worked insofar as it finally got Bouncehoper talking without being a punishment. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baby 81 covers most of this, I feel, as there was consensus on that talk page to include the name and thus a redirect should be present. I don't think that the undeletion of a redirect to something that explicitly includes the name of said redirect is in any way a BLP violation. This matter was discussed at the time anyway and I fail to see the reason for it being brought up now. violet/riga (t) 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Fred Bauder

As stated on Talk:Baby 81 BLP said:

"When the reliable sources used as references for an article about a living person or about an event involving one or more living persons refer to such individuals by name, the article generally can as well."

Myself and several others went along with this policy, so I'm not sure what you are on about. We agreed that the correct interpretation of the BLP policy was to include the name. How can restoring the redirect be a BLP violation when the name itself appears in the article? violet/riga (t) 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, in WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names Fred Bauder 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

With respect to my fellow editors, this feels like a "coat-rack" arbitration request. We're being presented with two entirely dissimilar allegations, one month apart. I don't know anything about the alleged misconduct reported by John254 (talk · contribs), but I see no evidence that prior methods of dispute resolution have been attempted. On the other matter, if this was a serious misconduct issue it should have been raised publicly at the time, not a month later as part of a separate matter. There was considerable discussion on Talk:Baby 81 and elsewhere (which I participated in), and there was grudging consensus that inclusion of the name was not problematic, especially given its frequent mention in reputable news outlets. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

This is Tony Sidaway suddenly re-discovering the article and reverting, without discussion, after it had stood, un-edited, for a month. This is a strange way to go about matters. I've reverted him pending an explanation of just what he's playing at. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Thatcher131, JzG, and WJBscribe's statements should not stand alone. The events leading up to this case, and the parts played by previously trustworthy editors, and even two arbitrators, have shocked me deeply. This disgusting and despicable use of an infant's name as a token in the war against the biographies of living persons policy is not consistent with the ideals of Misplaced Pages, to create an encyclopedia. For the first time, I feel thoroughly ashamed on behalf of the entire project. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Recuse. I may make a statement concerning Baby 81. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, based on overruling policy on the basis of consensus . Fred Bauder 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't think there's a case here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. The actions at Abhilasha Jeyarajah, which form the heart of this case, do not seem in any way problematic. - SimonP 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. There is insufficient information here for a case, I feel. James F. (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Serbophobia

Initiated by Rjecina at 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Statement by Rjecina

I am having request that Serbophobia article be deleted from wikipedia by decision of Arbitration Committee. Reasons for this request is that wikipedia is taking POV stand with this article. During Yugoslav wars there has been nationalistic hate which has survived until today. Between Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats hate toward Serbs is possible to call Serbophobia. In Serbia it has been hate towards Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats which is possible to call Anti-Albanians, Anti-Bosniaks and anti-Croats sentiment. Example that this hate has been real (and it has been created by propaganda) is this harvard article: . Today on wikipedia articles with names Anti-Albanians, Anti-Bosniaks and anti-Croats sentiment (or Croatophobia) are deleted and only article with name Serbophobia has stayed. In my thinking this is wrong and this is POV. We need on wiki to have all this articles or article Serbophobia need to be deleted. In the end it is funny wikipedia is now having article which speak how people hate state/nation which has started 10 years of war and there is no article which speak why have been (and are today) hated nations which are victims during this period. I will end with fact that until now article has been nominated 4 time for deletion and minimal 1 of this times has survived only because of alert given on Serbian wiki Rjecina 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This may be unnecessary, since one arbitrator has already indicated the likely way this request is going to take, but for the record, here's a bit of background. We have seen the creation of many articles of an "Anti-X'ism" format, listing grievances one ethnic group has about perceived or real discrimination from its neighbours. Many of these articles were put on AfD, sometimes separately, sometimes in small groups. The AfDs were often heated and dominated by ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT criteria, distributed along ethnic frontlines. Some were deleted, some not. Often, the debates revealed a notion of reciprocity: if you can have "your" Anti-X'ism article, I can have "my" Anti-Y'ism. Ultimately however, the decisions boiled down to an assessment of WP:NOR criteria in each separate case: while the mere existence of "Anti-X'ist" discrimination was often easy to demonstrate, its existence as a coherent object of a body of academic discourse and other reliable sources often was not. If I remember correctly, this is what saved the Serbophobia article, unlike most of the other Balkan ones.

Thus, as pointed out rightly by jpgordon, this is predominantly a simple content matter. The only thing that might reach into the domain of arbitrable behaviour is where, occasionally, there may have been an element of disruptive POINTiness, both in writing these articles and in defending or attacking them at AfD, similar to what has been alleged in the case of the "Allegations of Apartheid" series. But it has generally not reached the level seen there, and I don't think there is currently any hot warfare going on, so I don't see what Arbcom would need to do here now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I don't want to be unduly formalistic about things, but our model of arbitration really doesn't contemplate a case without any parties. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject categorically. This is the very definition of a content issue, and ArbCom is not empowered by either the community or the Foundation to determine such things. --jpgordon 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per jpgordon. Kirill 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• An obvious candidate for deletion, but we have a procedure, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, please use it. Fred Bauder 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per above FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls

Initiated by JSH-alive at 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Night Leon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rattis1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by JSH-alive

There is a dispute about the popularity of The Powerpuff Girls in the Talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Here we go again... and Talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Enough!. Started by Rattis1, other 3 involved later. Now, it's Marcus2 vs. Night Leon.

Statement by StC

What?

This should be rejected. It's not even at the level of a content dispute.

Why am I a party? Why was I not notified? Who is the person filing it and why are they related to this at all?

SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Filing party advised to notify all parties of the request for arbitration. (We clerks are slipping; we should have noticed sooner that the notifications section was missing.) Newyorkbrad 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline, premature content dispute; please attempt the preliminary methods of dispute resolution before bringing this here. Kirill 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, trivial content dispute Fred Bauder 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Foxy Brown

Initiated by The Gnome at 10:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• The Gnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.125.211.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.254.162.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The Gnome

The Date of Birth of the artist Foxy Brown is been changed back and forth. The artist claims in her MySpace Account that she was born in 1979. There is nothing else substantiating that claim. On the other hand, a police report states that she was born 6 September 1978. Parties 2 and 3, among other anonymous users, have been reverting the date back to the one claimed by the artist, despite strong/unique evidence to the contrary. Repeated efforts to elicit a reasoning from those parties have failed. (Which is why their opinion is not represented here.) I submit my request to fix the artist's DoB as indicated by the police record for arbitration and possible blocking of what appears to be a senseless edit war.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline, premature; please attempt the preliminary methods of dispute resolution before bringing this here. Kirill 12:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject Premature and appears to be mostly a content dispute. Involve more members of the community and I think you can resolve this content dispute. If there are user conduct issues then try to solve by getting help from an uninvolved third party. If that fails then do an user conduct RFC. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, premature, content dispute. --jpgordon 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, trivial content dispute Fred Bauder 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Initiated by Mofb at 11:43, 28 August 2007

regarding

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

• Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 62.136.27.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 81.77.248.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by the subject

The subject is the maker of the request. He and others have repeatedly tried to prevent posting of libelous material in a section entitled "philosophical and/or political views" which has been inserted into his biographical entry. At present, for instance, there is a reference to an article by George Monbiot, but no reference to the strongly-worded correction which the newspaper in question was compelled to print the following day. The subject has contacted the complaints team, and has given warnings that libel proceedings will follow if the libelous material continues to be posted. All attempts to prevent the libels, including a recent but now-withdrawn full protection of the page, have been unsuccessful. Balancing material is repeatedly removed, and hostile material inserted, to create a false, unfair, and detrimental impression of the subject's competence.

To settle this matter, and to prevent future libels, I should be grateful if my biographical entry were deleted altogether from Misplaced Pages. Accurate biographical entries are available in Who's Who, Debrett's People of Today, etc., so the Misplaced Pages entry is not needed. I am mortally ill and do not want my reputation degraded so unfairly at the close of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs)

Comment by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

See Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and its talk page. The reference above to a "strongly-worded correction which the newspaper .. was compelled to print" in fact refers to Christopher Monckton's own reply, which was printed in The Guardian on page 37 on 15 November, 2006; the above gives the incorrect impression that it was a newspaper correction rather than a 'right to reply' which The Guardian did not endorse. The piece was printed in a column called "The Response" which is described by the paper in the following terms: "The Response column offers those who have been written about in the Guardian an opportunity to reply". Sam Blacketer 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

I've been watching this article for some time following its appearance on WP:BLPN and WP:AN/I in June this year. This request for arbitration seems extremely premature and this is fundamentally a content dispute, therefore outwith the remit of the Arbitration Committee. The history of the article has seen an anonymous editor (presumably User:Mofb?) repeatedly adding contentious unsourced material (including a copy-and-paste of an entire newspaper article) and being reverted by other editors. However, the anonymous editor has made no use of dispute resolution, not even using the article's talk page. Nor has he even said which content he considers to be libellous, as far as I know. This lack of discussion or specificity has obviously made it rather difficult for the article's editors to resolve disputes. Arbitration does not seem to me to be the best way to resolve this issue. -- ChrisO 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with JzG and Daniel's comments below. This Guardian article suggests that there's a long-running wrangle between Monckton and Monbiot/The Guardian. It's worth noting that the same individual also appears to have threatened libel proceedings against Misplaced Pages at an earlier date concerning the articles Eternity Puzzle, Peter Tatchell, OutRage! and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled (now deleted) - all topics relating to Monckton. These were blanked by an editor from 62.136.27.125 on December 6, 2006 and replaced with the (very quickly reverted) message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings". The same IP editor signed himself "M of B" in this deleted edit, so it seems safe to assume that it was the same complainant as in this case. -- ChrisO 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

OTRS ticket is 2007082810012738, for reference. I recommend that arbitrators and other interested parties read the subject's letter, the tone of which may inform the decision and handling of this dispute.

The present content has both Monbiot's article and Monckton's rebuttal, which seems reasonable. There is no suggestion that there are errors of fact within the article, only that the subject disputes statements made by another individual, which we report accurately and with attribution. There is no suggestion that our reporting of the dispute is inaccurate, the subject's issue appears to be with the statements made by a notable individual on a shared field of expertise (or at least a field in which both appear to be considered qualified to comment). Issues of factual accuracy should, of course, be dealt with promptly, and we should show all due courtesy to the subject, while not compromising our editorial independence.

Above all, though, while we are not here to publicise agenda-driven reporting, Misplaced Pages does not exist to fix external disputes. The dispute is between Monckton and Monbiot, with the Guardian as a venue; reporting this controversy does not seem to me to be a violation of policy, and to assert that A is wrong because B says so, rather than to say (as we do) that A says X and B disputes it, would be wrong, I think. It is not a surprise that Monckton does not like what Monbiot says - he does not accept the scientific consensus on global warming, whereas Monbiot is a trenchant critic of the climate change denial industry and a long-time advocate of strong action to reduce carbon emissions. We are not here to fix this problem. As documented criticisms go, a criticism in such terms in a major national newspaper by a widely-quoted authority is, like it or not, a notable criticism.

With those facts in mind, this is not a WP:BLP issue, poses no issue of precedent requiring of ArbCom intervention, and it looks to me as if it can safely be handled as a regular content dispute unless it escalates further. The subject is in contact with OTRS, and volunteers can be trusted to remedy errors of fact promptly.

• Update: OTRS ticket moved to Legal following subject's reply. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Suggest this case is rejected by the arbitrators and the Wikimedia Legal team are left to deal with it via OTRS, given the recent queue reclassification for the ticket JzG cites. Daniel 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Premature, and likely a content issue anyway. --jpgordon 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature. I think the community can handle this content dispute and handle the user conduct issues if needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Accept in order to clarify how the principles of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons apply to this specific case. Fred Bauder 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Josh. James F. (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Misplaced Pages following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat

• You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.

One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nowhere near a neutral party here (too many underlying reasons), but I second what NYB says. - Penwhale | 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in #Instantnood3 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 10 active Arbitrators, and one who has voted but is now away, a majority is 6.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Try again in a few months. - SimonP 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

With the passage of time and Betacommand's continued contributions to Misplaced Pages, the Committee hereby restores Betacommand's administrative privileges under these stipulations:

• Betacommand may not operate any bot that utilizes administrative privilege without prior approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "bot" is to be construed broadly to include any full or partial automation of the administrative functions not already in widespread use by other administrators. Prior approval may come from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), or for bots that provide partial automation that would not ordinarily require BAG approval, this committee.
• Betacommand must observe the notification requirements and delay periods specified in policy prior to deleting images.

As there are presently 10 active Arbitrators, and two who have voted but are now away, a majority is 7.

• Clerk note: This motion is noted as rejected. Keeping this here for at least 24 hours. - Penwhale | 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Raul654 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
3. --jpgordon 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Uncomfortable with this, given his continually controversial behavior. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Paul August ☎ 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose for now. Keep doing your good work and we can talk about down the road. I feel you are too controversial now to be effective as an admin. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. SimonP 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
7. I'm afraid that I'm not convinced, either. Sorry. James F. (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Abstain until I discuss with Betacommand by email his views on blocking established users. FloNight 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) See above vote.

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