Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 15 September 2007 (→Concerns about the new proposed decision: Wow, that's not even a word, is it? Not relevant anyway; Ossified is right. Meant to be "precocious."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Active/inactive Arbitrators

Active

• Blnguyen
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Raul654
• SimonP

Away/inactive

• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality (Ben)
• Paul August
• UninvitedCompany

Name

"Ted Frank" sans 's'. His article gives also provides some sense of his background. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's almost purely symbolic at this point, but given the proposed finding that it was discourteous for an editor to keep referring to THF's real name after THF asked everyone to stop, I'm not sure why the proposed decision does so. The version of the finding that Fred originally offered in the workshop might be preferable in this regard. Newyorkbrad 09:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Focus of dispute finding

Maybe "comparing" should be replaced with "contrasting", to make it clear the difference in the two systems. Picaroon (t) 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on "THF banned from politically charged topics"

Which "problematic editing" are we talking about? Incidentally, I think that this proposal, which has been endorsed by both sides, should be adopted in some form. Talk page edits (e.g. the Sicko ranking proposal) won't normally rise to the level of violating COI. I'm a bit mystified by Raul's return for this arbitration, and by his suggestion that THF not edit global warming, which was not at issue in any of these disputes.

Lastly, I hate to parrot THF's argument, but Raul's proposals do beg some questions: what about other editors who regularly cite to their very own work, not just the work of other academically independent fellows under the same employer. (AEI is not so homogeneous to consider all fellows a COI with respect to THF.) Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the problem is the way a person goes about proposing it. For instance, his "documentary" ranking was entitled Sicko’s Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too, and he argued for its use across WP:MULTIPLE articles, such as WikiProject Film as well as on Talk:Sicko,
  • You reference four talk page diffs, all which occurred before the RFC was closed by THF himself - I've still not seen a diff that occurred after the RFC, and I've still not seen any actual article diff. It is astounding to me that we continue to point to this as the prime example of THF's supposed wrongdoing, when in fact is it a textbook example of how to present your own material for inclusion. Unbelievable. ATren 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't just say, "Hey, I wrote this little article and would like to propose it to be included," but was actually arguing that we would violate NPOV policy by not including it. I think it's problematic to imply that "anything goes" on Talk pages where COI issues are concerned. That was the genesis of my COI guideline change proposal, but I belatedly realized it would limit participation too much. In THF's case, he kind of abused the guidelines with his arguments. Which brings me back to my original point that THF often abuses the spirit of guidelines and policies, if not the letter. But ATren, the problems with THF revolve around the totality of his edits and that he doesn't edit with NPOV, a fundamental policy, in mind. He pushed an agenda, something I can not be accused of doing. --David Shankbone 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are arguing that it is improper, indeed against policy, to make an argument on a talk page? Even if the editor in question never edits the article directly and abides by consensus when others don't agree? You aren't really suggesting that, are you David? ATren 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that THF went over the line of acceptability in his proposal on the Talk page. That is not the only thing I am arguing, but it is one. --David Shankbone 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be Socratic about this, but how could he have proposed it and not have gone over the line? You mention the MULTI problem, but that seems to be at least partially as a reaction to a suggestion that his proposal would logically entail posting it on all relevant articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that his documentary list would be proposed for all 25 articles found on that list wasn't a suggestion it was a suspicion, and I was right. THF confirmed that. That would have made THF's documentary ranking equal in importance to MoJo's rankings, and it would have been an importance Misplaced Pages alone would have bestowed upon it. It also would have put on 25 film article pages, "Michael Moore's Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too", the title of his "Documentary Rankings". THF saw no problem with this. Had it been my article, I would have made the proposal along the lines of my original COI guideline suggestion. I would have proposed, and let others debate it, interjecting to answer questions or clear up misconceptions. I wouldn't have done it the way THF did, which was as a juggernaut. He was implying that by not using his own work, the Sicko editors were once again proving left-wing bias, and violating policy. That, Luke, goes beyond the bounds of what I consider an acceptable way for a person with COI to make a proposal; but I don't think there is a useful way to codify that, which is why I backed down from the argument over my proposal (which I wasn't the only one who wrote that proposal, it was done in collusion with a neutral editor). --David Shankbone 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have followed up on any of the other pages. Does proposing on more than one talk page make it a "juggernaut," which is sanctionable? I'm not clear on the limits of what you or the arbitrators might consider sanctionable. How about an example: say that I proposed that this article be mentioned in articles on Larry H. Miller and EnergySolutions. This is basically my work that's been published in a reliable source, not unlike THF's list. Still, it has the patina of second-gen OR to it, like one might perceive in THF's article. Would I be breaking COI to suggest that it be mentioned in more than one article? What if I demanded it mention all articles listed? When does the COI guideline frown on it? What if I claimed that Misplaced Pages was promoting a pro-corporate agenda by denying my refs, does it become against the COI there? I simply don't see where acceptable good faith talk comments transmute into actionable COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. Consider this example from the Sicko talk archives: THF produces twelve sources of criticism for Sicko, including some conservative sources, but also including the Toronto Star, Washington Post, Business Week, and that bastion of right wing propaganda, MTV! Others objected, with reasoning that included "I assert that left-wing polemics, and left-wing criticisms of right-wing polemics, are generally more accurate, hence generally better represented in Misplaced Pages.", "Take it to Conservapedia", "Ted, if you want the relatively few right-wing screeds to get treated with undue weight, you'll find a happy home at Conservapedia." and "reception of avowed right-ring publications will be negative, " and later, "I think this dispute is a transparent attempt at Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering a high weight to the conservative viewpoint that isn't actually related to the subject of this article but the Universal health care debate. I am not impressed, and it seems that most serious editors aren't either" implying that Ted was not a serious editor. Ted continued to pursue the point that there should be mention of the controversy in the lead paragraph based on multiple cited sources including even a new reference to the New York Times (a conservative rag if there ever was one), and all he got in response was POV-loaded arguments like the ones cited above - and he was the one accused of disruption and wikilawyering.

So, to summarize: THF argued the point on the talk page and backed it up with reliable mainstream references; others called his sources "right wing screeds", accused him of wikilawyering, and implied that his arguments were non-serious. Meanwhile, the article today includes criticism in the intro, which it should (does anybody really believe that Sicko is without controversy?) And for this, THF is being hounded off the project. Conclusion: the right wingers who accuse Misplaced Pages of bias might just have a point... ATren 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• THF's proposals had little to do with criticizing Sicko the film, but criticizing the organizations that Michael Moore, and many other organizations, governments, and IGO's rely upon for data. THF was tossing out 25 links at at time, inundating the Talk page with days-worth of homework to wade through. Most of ATren's and CHL's arguments above have been addressed, and ATren's in particular was discussed here on the Sicko page with THF. Again, it comes down to, "Agree with us, or you prove the bias against right-wing editors." THF's problem has been THF, not his ideology. It has been about the way he makes proposals, the way he tries to bully his point of view (including with his own work) and his contentious nature. None of us are in law school, Luke, and I don't think the arbitrators (or myself) are interesting in running through the nuance of socratic method hypotheticals. I think part of the problem is that the people who have advocated on behalf of THF (ATren and CHL) see nothing wrong with the way he has conducted himself, have made no proposals for how he could better edit, and condone everything he has done. Had THF not had an activist agenda, he would not have run into many of these problems; had he not revealed who he was, he would have been blocked for violating NPOV and agenda-pushing. --David Shankbone 12:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense! See my comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop#Disruptive point of view statements by THF, where I specifically disagreed with THF about the sometimes needlessly adversarial tone of his edits, and wrote my own proposal stating that Misplaced Pages policy frowns on it. At any rate, I posed a concrete hypothetical precisely to demonstrate how this ambiguity is a problem. At what point do talk page suggestions become COI problems? Cool Hand Luke 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• How do you think THF should have handled his proposal on Sicko? Do you think it was okay the way he went about it, including the arguments he raised? --David Shankbone 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, yes. Note, this does not mean I agree with his arguments, but that I do agree (with a few exceptions) with the way he presented them. You seem to be offended by his mere presence here, and that's a problem. ATren 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this statement shows how inexperienced you are with edit wars. Few POV editors follow policy as scrupulously as THF. If you would like to see actual POV warriors, please take a look at Quackwatch where several SPAs on each side hurl uncivil comments and endlessly revert actual articles such that they are periodically locked. Several of these are probably COI editors, and ArbCom strongly suspected one was several months ago, but they continue to edit unmolested, and will probably continue for many more months, if not indefinitely. They’re much worse than every caricature of THF you’ve presented, but they don’t have a David Shankbone dragging them around.

This editor manifestly was not and is not given latitude for his identity. If you had more experience with POV editors, you would realize that they’re almost never blocked when they are (1) civil, (2) don’t engage in edit wars, and (3) are aware of Misplaced Pages policy. Just ask Raul how easy it is to get such editors blocked. (For further proof, compare this with this—the former editor is much worse at following policy than THF, yet will probably remain with us for some time.) Again, this remedy comes down to punishing this editor for naively taking WP:COI at face value. Cool Hand Luke 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we have not yet rid Misplaced Pages of all problem users is not a justification for keeping one around, nor does it excuse THF's problematic editing. Raul654 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I posit that this user really isn't a problem user. Moreover, the fact that a self-identified editor will be systemically drummed of the project creates a clear incentive to not self identify, to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Basically, you propose we constrain his editing more for signing up under his real name than other users after months of attacks and 3RR violations. It seems we're going after the perception of COI editing more than the reality, which doesn't really solve anything. I could perhaps support this decision if we treated every POV warrior this way, but we don't, and it creates perverse incentives. Cool Hand Luke 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is "drumming him out of the project". If THF has chosen to quit (as we are repeatedly reminded), that's his own decision. In fact, it sounds like a threat: "If you sanction me, I'll quit." Regardless of the value that any single editor brings to the project, to allow that editor the latitude to hold the project hostage is a strategy which will doom the project to failure. Furthermore, while you claim to "support this decision", you then undermine it by claiming that we have to treat every POV warrior this way. In other words, we will be creating a precedent that no POV warrior can ever be sanctioned, because there will always be other, prior POV warriors who were never effectively dealt with. Perhaps this is the time to start so that a more effective precedent can be set. Ossified 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with Ossified (who edit conflicted me, making my comment mostly redundant). Anyways, the fact that it is infeasible to treat all POV warriors with this sort of a topic ban is not reason to not do it to some of them. Picaroon (t) 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise, but it creates a clear incentive to avoid disclosing COI, which is a bad thing for wikipedia with no possible upside. All things considered, one THF in the open is benign compared to the underground COI editors we utterly fail to address. If we want a double standard, it should be to impose the harsher rules against those who admit no COI. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no double standard. All editors are supposed to disclose the existence of a COI. That is necessary, but it's not sufficient to innoculate the editor from future claims that they are POV-pushing or editing in a NPOV fashion. That THF disclosed his COI is not admirable--it's required, in the same way that editing in a NPOV fashion isn't admirable, it's what you're supposed to do when you come here. There is no double standard related to COI, there's a single standard. An editor with a conflict must disclose. Likewise, there are no 'harsher' rules for those who fail to disclose, there is a rule for those who fail to disclose, period. Underground COI editors are subject to sanction regardless of whatever sanctions are applied in this case. Ossified 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like how FAAFA immediately disclosed his identity? Perhaps one day we will verify all user's identities. Until then we have to cope with the reality on the ground, which rewards users who self-disclose with proceedings like this. In this environment, we doubly reward the dishonest. We should watch him for POV (and his disclosure makes that easy to do), but we should apply the same POV standard we would apply to any other editor. Doing otherwise is not supported by policy, and hurts the project by encouraging closet COIs. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I have no idea what controversy regarding FAAFA you are referring to. You are, however, insistent on setting up a strawman regarding disclosure. Editors are required to disclose, period. There are sanctions for failure to do that, period. Will there be cheaters? I guarantee it, regardless of what happens in this ArbCom. Your argument 6 messages ago was that (to paraphrase) 'since we haven't sanctioned POV warriors in the past, we can't start sanctioning them now.' I was arguing against that logic. You have now apparently changed what your argument is, to some hypothetical involving what editors will do in the future. I'm sure that we can all imagine horrible consequences that will occur if the ArbCom fails to follow our lead. At the end of the day, however, they are hypothetical and there will still be rules in place to deal with them. Ossified 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you know who FAAFA is. The point is that our policy can say that we demand that all users to wear green socks, but it doesn't mean anything unless they have a reason to co-operate. I think most people have the goodwill to volunteer disclosure like THF, but if it means a topic ban from the only subjects they care about, it's a counterproductive pseudopolicy.

And that's not what I said at all—not even slightly. My arguments have always talked about the incentives and deterrents we create for editors, ever since I suggested that ArbCom take this case. I apparently haven't made this clear enough. ArbCom is free to start sanctioning POV warriors, but if THF is how low we set the bar, a lot of people will have to go. ArbCom shows no interest in making the general rules so nitpicky; it's clear that this is some sort of COI exception, and it should not be that way. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who FAAFA is. I do know this, however: you can have a policy requiring editors to disclose COI and you can require them to be civil and you can tell them not to push POV, but if you don't enforce them, they're nonproductive pseudopolicies. Suggesting that THF isn't the worst of the lot and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned leads to a very subjective decision of who to sanction, and everyone is free to claim that there's someone worse than they are (see earlier claims regarding CBerlet, WMC, and Wikidea). Net result? No enforcement, no sanctions, just pseudopolicies. Ossified 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into that argument either. My sole concern is—and has always been—that if we apply harsher sanctions to users that disclose COI, then no one will disclose COI. It's like THF is getting a fine for chewing gum on the train, while those who simply jump the turnstiles never get fines for precisely the same behavior—and rarely get fines for wholesale vandalism of the train. Since we can't enforce who boards the train, it would be better if we treat all passengers equally, so that some riders actually reveal useful things about themselves. So let's enforce the policies, but let's do it as we would for any other user. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the AEI

Y'know, it's not really possible for the AEI to espouse viewpoints because they aren't a lobbying organization. At best he espoused views held by his colleagues, who are a heterogeneous bunch of academically independent fellows (AEI scholar Jack Goldsmith is not speaking to AEI scholar John Yoo). A talk page link to a webcast hosted by them and a correctly-labeled point of view from a conservative hardly shows a violation of our policies, let alone the COI guideline. If this is worthy of being topic banned, a lot of editors will have to be banned, such that no one would dare declare any potential conflicts of interest ever. That's really the heart of such a punitive rule. If THF hadn't told you from day one, nobody would have even known to accuse him of a COI. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So many arguments you guys raise are strawmen. If THF hadn't told us who he was, he still would not have been successful in any regard. That he was from AEI, I feel, made people pay attention to his arguments more--it did for me. But if he wasn't from AEI things like the Moore hit piece fiasco would have been seen as the efforts of a loose canon editor with a weight problem. We shouldn't be giving editors who do the right thing--declaring their COI--carte blanche to do and say anything they want by rewarding them with deference. I believe THF would have been blocked had he not revealed who he was; I think he was given extraordinary latitude precisely because of who he is. --David Shankbone 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe he would have been blocked for his behavior? Where is this coming from? What blockable offense are you referring to? I'm sorry, but this is approaching the level of parody. Look at those talk pages. Look at some of the stuff other anonymous editors were saying to THF, and then tell me again with a straight face that he would have been blocked for his words! This would be positively hilarious if not for the fact that now we have two arb com members are endorsing this witch hunt. ATren 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren, multiple editors have supplied evidence of THF's problematic editing. You are welcome to review the evidence and workshop pages. --David Shankbone 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ATren, CHL, or myself are suggesting that THF's behaviour was never problematic, merely that it wasn't problematic to the extent that some are asserting. Given how high-profile the dispute became, if he had earned a block, wouldn't he have been blocked? SamBC(talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people think I earned a block, and I wasn't so much as warned of being blocked aside from a Raymond Arnitt and Georgewilliamherbert threatening both of us. I don't think the absence of a block means he didn't deserve a block. I don' think the absence of resistance to THF's edits made them NPOV, such as on Robert Bork. --David Shankbone 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) David, I've seen all the evidence, and I've commented on it, some of it (mildly) critical of THF. None of it approaches the level of a blockable offense, especially given what he's been subjected to. David, I opposed a ban for you, but honestly this level of piling on and revisionist history is starting to become very problematic for me. This was an overblown content dispute, and while THF was producing rock solid sources and playing by the rules, others were telling him to "take it to Conservapedia". Through all that crap, he remained relatively civil, and abided by consensus when neutral third parties disagreed with him (see the multiple RfCs he filed). And now, here, you and other have spent two weeks digging through his edit history and have produced, what, THREE questionable mainspace edits? And even those were marginally questionable. This is a witch hunt that has driven a valuble editor from the project, and yet here you are, continuing to pile on new unfounded accusations. It needs to stop. ATren 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to stop is the level of hyperbole that has reached breath-taking heights on THF's side. --David Shankbone 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to respond with real evidence of blockable offenses? No, I guess not, since you've already canvassed his entire edit history and the best you could come up with was a few minor civility transgressions. You're the one that continues to escalate, even after you've "retired" what, 3 times from this case? Ironically, early on you mocked THF for coming back from "retirement" and you are now approaching Roger Clemens territory here. It makes me wonder if perhaps you have a personal association with Michael Moore which you haven't yet revealed, because I can't understand how you can be so personally offended by THF's activities on the Sicko page. ATren 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Engaging in this unsupported speculation is not helpful. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Effects of this Decision

It seems like a sanction against THF is starting to build support in the proposed decision, and I would like to raise two issues:

• This case will serve as a roadmap for how an influential third party like Michael Moore can drive a respected editor off the project: antagonize him, mock him, dig up dirt from his past, get your fans to anonymously attack his user page, then sit back and watch as his on-wiki opponents push him further over the edge.
• This case is practially a banner ad for the abomination that is Conservapedia. "Respected conservative gets hounded off Misplaced Pages" will be the crux of the campaign, and what evidence will this committee cite in its defense? A few slightly marginal mainspace edits? THF is not some random anonymous hack who was pushing conspiracy theories, he is a respected conservative intellect who cited solid mainstream sources to support his view that some articles were skewed to the left, and he was summarily hounded off a project where even anonymous vandals get 3rd, 4th, and 5th warnings. The only reasonable conclusion is that he was rejected because his views. ATren 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on Sunshine, not over yet... Fred Bauder 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The strawman cometh again. --David Shankbone 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, ATren, the way you harass User:Avidor by citing his name, and keeping a blog criticizing his Misplaced Pages work (called "Weiner Watch" - a personal attack, since Weiner isn't a very nice way to describe a Wikipedian), and proudly trumpeting this harassment of him on your User page doesn't give you much moral credibility. How do your concerns in this case fit with your year-long harassment (you've had that blog going since September 2006) of User:Avidor? You don't feel shadowing his edits and criticizing them in a frequently updated blog isn't harassment? If anyone should be making these arguments above, it should not be you, since your own behavior is imminently questionable as it regards Avidor. Where do you get off talking about harassment of THF, who outed himself, and saying that questioning his behavior, that at least 15 different editors admonished him over in the month of August alone, leads to harassment? Why don't you clean your own house first? Maybe "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is more fitting - you choose. --David Shankbone 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm the next target to be hounded off the project. ATren 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another strawman - you don't think your aren't hounding Avidor? How is your own behavior any better? Why don't you take the blog down and cease harassing him? That would be sufficient. --David Shankbone 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this case, but you continue to bring it up even though you know nothing about the history of that debate. Yet again we see another data point in the DavidShankBone MO: when in a conflict with another editor, dig through that editor's history in an attempt to find isolated, inflammatory material to be used against him in a completely unrelated dispute. Thank you for proving our point that this is always been about attacking the editor for you. ATren 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It goes to your lack of any moral credibility here. You made yourself part of this ArbCom, but now you don't want your own dirty house brought up? Please. You should be ashamed of yourself, ATren. Regardless of the history of your "debate" with User:Avidor, you use his real name on your page, you have an off-wiki blog that criticizes his Misplaced Pages edits, and you have done this for a year. You have half your User page space devoted to this harassment of another Misplaced Pages editor. Yet you come into this ArbCom ranting about harassment over THF, who has had a long and problematic history on Misplaced Pages?! It's galling, your nerve and hypocrisy. You have no room to make the arguments you make. That you consider all of these factual statements an "attack" is very THF-esque. What have I written above that is not factually true? --David Shankbone 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And what does my "moral credibility" have to do with this case and the arguments I've made on this page? Can you separate the argument from the editor making it? I came to this case as a completely uninvolved third party, yet you seem to want to attack me and my "moral credibility" because I happened to have a long running dispute with someone else completely unrelated to this case. To me, that's just more evidence of a troublesome pattern. ATren 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Doom, THF, ATren, CHL: Priceless

Reviewing this ArbCom, it's pretty priceless. THF, an activist editor, who has made POV edits across Misplaced Pages, been involved in numerous disputes, called at least two long-term editors vandals, including Raul64, has inserted his own blog work onto articles, tried to get his own unnotable article attacking Michael Moore inserted into 25 film articles, who has edited his employer's page, created the article for his employer's rag The American (magazine) (which just so happened to have published THF's article), in a one month span was admonished by 15 editors, is held up by CHL as "admin material" and is called a victim of left-wing bias. David Shankbone, on the other hand, has spent the last year uploading over 2,000 images of people and things that are hard to obtain; has created articles over interesting topics ranging in a broad variety of subject matter, all heavily cited in an NPOV; has collaborated across multiple Misplaced Pages projects; is highly regarded by both the Wikimedia Foundation and those who edit its projects; who has absolutely not one shred of evidence of an agenda in his history; he, Shankbone, has been the primary focus of the Arbitration. Until yesterday, pretty much all of the proposal remedies centered around banning me, warning me, calling me a "menace", shadowing me, putting me on probation and harassment patrol. THF's side raises the double-standard issue often. Yet we have on that side ATren, who for over a year has kept on his User space an advertisement for a blog called "Weiner Watch" that focuses solely on the edits of User:Avidor. He mocks him, he calls him names, he tracks his every move, and he crows about it. Yet nothing has been done. Then ATren comes here and rants about off-wiki harassment by MichaelMoore.com for simply fingering a known public critic, THF, who edits all of his articles. ATren comes on here complaining of the harassment and double-standard applied to THF, not realizing the same argument could be raised that there seems to be a double-standard at work with him. Where is CHL's denunciation of this harassment of User:Avidor? Is this acceptable, CHL? Do you condone it? Here's a quote from ATren's User page:

Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch" where I analyze and debunk the 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.

What if I substituted in THF? Does anyone doubt I would be blocked? What if the exact same thing occurred in this situation, and I had this on my User page:

Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Michael Moore Enthusiast") called "Double Chin Watch" where I analyze and debunk the claims made by Ted Frank about Michael Moore. Some have erroneously claimed I am attacking THF 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.

Seriously: that sixty day ban would have been without question. Then ATren, who not only was involved in the MichaelMoore.com dispute, but also has made himself very involved here, actively chiming in against THF's "harassment", says this isn't about him. Yet Wikidea and Guettarda have been dragged into this insistently by THF's side, even both of those editors have insisted they do not want to be part of it. Double standard? I've done nothing at all of the sort of reprehensible harassment that has befallen User:Avidor. I have admitted from the beginning that I made mistakes in how I handled this entire affair, and the ArbCom would be right to point that out and let me know how to do better in the future. THF has not been conciliatory at all. His defenders see only the most minor of missteps by THF. Indeed, CHL thinks he should be an admin. On one hand, CHL lauds THF's on Jim Hood as a hero fighting COI, and then just moments later calls them a BLP disaster. Confused? Me too. Unlike THF's side, my arguments have remained consistent and logically sound. I haven't tried to game policies or guidelines. I've expressed regret at my "over exuberance" in pursuit of an agenda-drive POV editor. But THF's side...they really are in a league of their own. All the old familiar doomsday bogeyman have been trotted out: I have a "personal relationship" with Michael Moore (yet I've only edited Sicko); ArbCom is dooming Misplaced Pages with any findings against THF; there is a left-wing bias on Misplaced Pages and this proves it; nobody will ever again admit their COI; blah, blah, blah. All these strawmen slippery-slope arguments go back to the same thing: don't question THF, he's done not one thing wrong, and if you find that his unacceptable behavior is just that, then you, ArbCom, have opened a Pandora's Box of hellish proportions upon the project. This is what they argue, not me. The heightened pitch and tone of their arguments are more than "over exuberant" but almost shrill. Yet it is their own logic and double-standards that continually fail. Not mine.--David Shankbone 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I personally believe that this would actually belong in the evidence page. Personally, from a clerk's point of view, parties should present their case and let the Arbitrators decide, whether they like it or not. Nonconstructive comments do not help in any ways. - Penwhale | 04:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the new proposed decision

Like some other commenters here, I am concerned about the direction in which this case seems to be headed. The three arbitrators who have voted thus far are divided on whether THF violated Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy in a significant way. That is consistent with the split that had arisen within the community on this issue. Personally, I don't think that this case is most usefully analyzed in terms of WP:COI but more in terms of undue weight issues. In any event, though, the committee took this case largely to try to address how our conflict of interest guidelines applied to this editor, but is deciding the case with largely conclusory pronouncements (Fred's assertion that THF did not violate COI, versus Raul's and Kirill's assertion that he did). Little analysis has been offered to support either conclusion, leaving the community, in terms of guidance for future situations, with little more policy analysis or discussion of how COI should apply in a relatively novel situation than we had before.

In the meantime, as a result of being dragged into this arbitration case, THF has announced that he has retired from editing Misplaced Pages, and for several days has engaged in little or no editing. Given that THF is widely understood to be a well-known attorney and policy analyst in real life, and the fact that his real-life identity is widely known (and is gratuitiously mentioned in this decision, as I pointed out higher on this page), a formal conclusion by the Arbitration Committee that THF violated Misplaced Pages conflict-of-interest policies bears the potential to be thrown in this former editor's face and used against him in real-world contexts. This although the COI infractions occurred in largely unsettled territory; although several respected editors (including an arbitrator) concluded that there was no COI; and although the record is replete with good-faith, if in some arbitrators' estimation inadequate, disclosure of the potential conflicts.

In addition, even assuming for the sake of argument that THF edited inappropriately and in violation of WP:COI, and even assuming that he were going to return to edit in the future, the remedy proposal under which "THF is banned from all politically charged topics, including (but not limited to) those dealing with Michael Moore, health care, and global warming" strikes me as draconian and grossly excessive. No justification for the scope of the remedy has been offered and it appears to be disproportionate to both the scope of THF's offenses and to remedies applied to other editors in earlier cases.

THF, particularly in his latter days, was not a model editor, but I find the nature, tone, and potential effect of the proposed findings and remedy against him to be highly unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In any event, though, the committee took this case largely to try to address how our conflict of interest guidelines applied to this editor, but it deciding the case with largely conclusory pronouncements (Fred's assertion that THF did not violate COI, versus Raul's and Kirill's assertion that he did). Little analysis has been offered to support either conclusion, leaving the community, in terms of guidance for future situations, with little more policy analysis or discussion of how COI should apply in a relatively novel situation than we had before. - Fair enough. Can you be specific in what kind of guidance you are looking for? Raul654 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My concerns about the potential impact of any decision in this case on THF's real-world activities are actually my greatest area of concern about the decision and raise questions about whether this case is the right vehicle for addressing general questions about the scope of the COI policy. But assuming that it proceeds, what is not answered is why the arbitrators believe that THF violated the COI policy, and what he should have done differently, and why the remedy adopted is proportional to the violations of policy that took place. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I can only speak for myself, but the reason I see this as a conflict of interest is that THF is paid by a political advocacy group (Cool Hand Luke's claims that the American Enterprise Institue is not a political advocacy group are completely at odds with reality). Hypothetially speaking, if this were the only issue, I don't think that mere fact by itself would be sufficient to say THF is he is editing with a conflict of interest. But the fact is, David and Smb have pointed to multiple instances of problematic editing. The two combined - the problematic editing and the fact that he works for an advocacy group - are what, to me, constitutes a conflict of interest. This is codified in FOF #7 - THF's problematic editing (FOF #4), combined with his employment by a political advocacy group, violated Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest.

THF does not fashion it that way, of course. At the risk of putting words in his mouth (and I could well be wrong on this), I think he sees himself as an expert on this topic, and I do remember on occasion seeing him compare himself to William M. Connelly (an prolific contributor expert climatologist). That may well be so. However, the difference here is stark - global warming, one of the articles WMC contributes to frequently, is a featured article that has been vetted (both internally and externally) and is generally considered to be an excellent treatment of the subject. It is truly a shame that THF did not put his expertise to better use, and the mess on the Sicko article is the result.

As far as why the remedy is reasonable - I think given the way this has unfolded, it is reasonable to consider suspicious THF's edits to topics where his employer has a vested interest - that is, political topics. Banning him from those topics removes the conflict of interest. I see that as a fair. Raul654 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't apply the same strict criteria to others similarly situated. Fred Bauder 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim they weren't an advocacy group, just that the fellows are independent with differing (albeit conservative) views. One can't be held to have conflicts with independent fellows; we might as well claim that he has a COI with respect to all conservatives. At any rate, can you be more specific about which edits were problematic? The edits cited in FOF#4 are less than illuminating. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming that he has a conflict of interest between THF and either the AEI or the fellows thereof. The claim is that there is a conflict between the best interests of WP and best interests of his employer, the AEI. That there are many fellows at the AEI and that they may each have their own areas of expertise only means that THF should exercise extreme caution not to overemphatically represent the interests of any of the positions espoused by his employer. Failure to exercise that caution manifests itself in the appearance, if not the reality, of biased subject matter being inserted in the encyclopedia. The problem is not that a conflict exists. The problem is how the editor resolves that conflict. If he acts for the benefit of his employer, to the detriment of WP, there's a problem. Ossified 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks user Ossified, but this isn't explained in the current proposals. What exactly is it about the edits in FOF#4 that makes them unacceptable? If they are supposed to be POV, then we are clearly applying a much higher standard than the NPOV policy usually demand of ArbCom—I wonder whether this can be explained with reference to policy. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be disagreeable, but it's defined rather explicitly in Proposed Principle #4: 4) A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the purposes of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Misplaced Pages to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict. - Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Ossified 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, and you repeated it above. What's missing is the analysis connecting FOF#4B to a violation in policy. Cool Hand Luke 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I was only dealing with correcting what appeared to be your misinterpretation of where the conflict lay in a conflict of interest. Then when you suggested that it wasn't in the principles, I felt the need to point out where it was directly addressed. I'll get on to your other issue in the morning, assuming someone doesn't address it in the meantime. Ossified 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)