This is an old revision of this page, as edited by New4321 (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 29 October 2007 (Undid revision 167772461 by Newyorkbrad (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for intervention

2) I very strongly object to David editing my proposed statement of fact to make it seem like I am proposing something 100% opposite of what I said. It's not the first time he has tried to sanitize the Workshop page in his favor. THF 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It was done in good faith. I edited the title, not the proposal, or at they one in the same? I honestly don't know, but assumed they were not given Cool Hand Luke's comment. Can I have some clarification, please? Because if the title is not part of the proposal, then I think they need to be worded to reflect the words of the proposal, and not the spin of its author. I note the titles of my proposals all reflect those proposals, and I save my spin for my comment. --David Shankbone 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No one should be editing anyone else's proposals, except to fix obvious typos. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! David, my comment reflects confusion caused by the changed title. I didn't understand why your response was focused on the fact that the consensus was not for THF but against the proposal. This comment only makes sense under the old title. It's a substantive change. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the entire thing should be re-worded to reflect what it was meant to reflect. To say one thing in the title that doesn't match the proposal isn't particularly good faith. The title should reflect the proposal, not spin it. We aren't going to get anywhere here playing like that, it is just going to make this messy affair even more messy. --David Shankbone 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think proposed changes are what the comment sections are for. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To the proposal, or to the title, and are they one in the same? I'd prefer someone else besides THF's advocate respond. --David Shankbone 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the end the proposals are the operative part, that the arbitrators will look at. It seems the highest importance that they say what their proposer means them to say; the heading is mostly an organizational tool to navagate the page. If there is an inconsistency, suggest in the comments section an alternate title. But in the end I would think the proposals themselves are the most important to get right. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is experienced with ArbCom, and you have not yet accused him of being THF's advocate. I think he gave you the answer. If that's standard practice, then this motion is redundant, and you should just knock it off. Cool Hand Luke 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I am sure statements like "you have not yet accused" make you smile to yourself, they aren't particularly productive here. Please, keep the sneering to a minimum. Newyorkbrad responded to THF's "request for intervention" and not to my question I posed after he posted. Newyorkbrador or Penwhale: can you clarify that titles of proposals are completely off-limits to editing when they do not reflect the wording of the proposal, or only through discussion can they be edited? I have no problem not editing the titles, I just didn't think it was akin to editing the proposal itself. Also, can the clerk make a statement about the titles and the proposals and whether they should match and not spin? Because inaccurate titles that don't reflect the wording of the proposal (or, indeed, what happened, as CHL's comment confirmed below) only serve to confuse and make the conversation more tense. --David Shankbone 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not acting as a clerk in this case because I had some involvement in one of the underlying disputes and I've made a long statement. However, I can say that in the cases I have clerked over the past eight months, many of which have been extremely bitter and replete with expressions of hatred, I've never before seen a long thread about people changing the titles of each others' posts. Given the level of contentiousness here, it is an extremely bad idea for parties to the case to be editing each others' comments, whether the titles or anything else. Commenting in the comments section should be sufficient. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the advice will be heeded. --David Shankbone 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654's participation

2) Why is Raul654 acting in judgment when (a) participated in the underlying content dispute; and (b) has already prejudged the issue before the arbitration based on a tendentious reading of the COI policy contrary to the language of the guideline? Newyorkbrad recused himself, but Raul654 has not. Just curious: I don't particularly care, as I've retired from Misplaced Pages rather than play these games (this is the first time in a week that I've looked at the page); I didn't expect a fair hearing from Misplaced Pages arbitrators, and am not getting one, but even I am surprised that Misplaced Pages's left-wing bias is so pervasive that the conflict of interest issues are deemed to possibly cover my actions but not Raul654's participation.

I'm still waiting for Raul654 to object to William M. Connolley's editing of Misplaced Pages, as Connolley writes for the political advocacy organization, Environmental Media Services, which is a project of the left-wing Fenton Communications, whose sole role is political advocacy. But that would require Raul654 to have goals of even-handed enforcement rather than ridding Misplaced Pages of those he perceives as politically incorrect.

I further note that my employer is not a "political advocacy organization", and does not take political stands (thus obliterating the premise behind Raul654's claim of a COI violation), and I object to Raul654 making POV-pushing edits to the article of my employer to hide this fact. That edit deletes factual information, and violates NPOV by pushing a partisan organization's point of view in the lead. THF 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

A fair question, given this; however, it is up to the arbitrator to recuse themselves. Fred Bauder 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is there a motion or request here, or just a "sounding off"? --David Shankbone 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I find it a curious procedural quirk that THF is neither involved in these procedings nor not involved in these procedings, in much the same way that he was anonymous, yet not anonymous. Similarly, his supporters assure us that THF has been driven from Misplaced Pages, yet here he is again. Three questions come to mind:

(1) Does THF wish to continue to edit Misplaced Pages, recognizing that he may be subject to sanction from this ArbCom as a result of prior actions?

(2) Does THF wish to be anonymous, understanding that he has a responsibility to maintain that anonymity, and that he has responsibilities related to COI that are not attenuated by his anonymity and recognizing that anonymity will make it more difficult for him to establish 'expertise' in any subject on which he edits?

(3) Does THF intend to take part in these procedings, or does he intend to claim disinterest, then 'pop in' to make a few claims, and disappear again? Is he a subject of this ArbCom, or a deus ex machina?

Here's a bonus fourth question: Considering that there are established policies and procedures for dealing with COI, and further considering that THF has demonstrated knowledge of those procedures, why does THF fault Raul654 for his own failure to pursue established remedies? While it must be nice to have minions do one's bidding, responsibility for commenting on William M. Connelly's actions doesn't devolve to Raul654 just because THF asserts that there has been malfeasance. Ossified 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This little bit of harassment is inappropriate. THF is a valued volunteer. Editing or not, participating in arbitration or not is his choice. Fred Bauder 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Fred, I think Ossified raises valid points that are consistently glossed over by you. Ossified wasn't arguing against his participation, but stating that there is no consistency in what THF wants or says; the use of his name falls under this umbrella of ambiguity. You were also asked to recuse yourself (by THF's side) and were told by THF that you were attacking him. Lastly, there appears to be a double-standard at work. ATren chides me for "retiring not retiring" yet you give no similar admonishment to him. I write a post mentioning the double-standard in their arguments I'm told I should have it under evidence. Yet THF neither makes a motion nor a request, and somehow you have treated it as a valid issue in this section when he doesn't seem to be asking for anything but simply musing and complaining. THF is treated as a victim quite a bit in this arbitration, but he has quite a few allowances made for him. --David Shankbone 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that THF has retired from editing Misplaced Pages (although this is not an irrevocable choice), while continuing on occasion to look in on an arbitration proceeding that may not only control his ability to return to editing in the future should he wish to, but also be misused to affect his real-world reputation—a potential about which I remain quite concerned, and hope that the arbitrators will take into account in framing the final decision. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision#Concerns about the new proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only thing that is apparent is that THF has retired from editing Misplaced Pages as User:THF; that is not to say he has retired from editing Misplaced Pages under another User account, which many people (including myself) suggested he do anyway. I am also concerned, Newyorkbrad, that you are intoning that any decision should take into account supposed repercussions outside of Misplaced Pages; yet THF has complained of left-wing bias outside of Misplaced Pages himself and it is known he edits here at his workplace (I have an e-mail from him saying that the whole Michael Moore thing actually helped his reputation at AEI). If arbitrators feel he edited problematically, I don't see why they should be concerned about real or imagined reputation issues that THF brought upon himself. There was no witch hunt to find out who he was, so this Arbitration should assume that if there was no problem for THF editing here, and since his employer is aware of the Michael Moore issue, and since THF took into account that his abrasive style would not be seen as a problem at work when he was editing under his real name, then we should not assume otherwise. --David Shankbone 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to parse your "minions" language, but THF has accepted that he will not be anonymous. He explained his username mess on the VPP, see User:THF/VPP. I don't think it's unreasonable for a busy person who is casually harassed here to try limit their activity on Misplaced Pages. It's also consistent for a user to hope (for the sake of future editors) to win a favorable outcome. That's why I support THF here—I have very few political edits, and no conflicts of interest that I'm aware of, but for the good of Misplaced Pages we should have the COI guidelines interpreted to not deter users like THF from coming forward. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope to clear up the "minions" language for you. A minion is a servile or sycophantic follower--someone who does the bidding of another, more powerful person. I'm sure that you already know this. If you read the sentence in question with that in mind, I think that you'll see that I was suggesting that it is not Raul654's responsibility to 'go after' William M. Connelly, simply because THF tells him to. In other words, while it would be nice to be able to command others (in this case, Raul654) to do things for us, the responsibility for initiating action against WMC lies with THF, not with Raul654. If the use of the word 'minions' is the 'harassment' that Fred is referring to, I apologize for not being clearer. Ossified 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I don't think THF is commenting on Raul654 inaction against Connolley, but for applying a double standard. Raul654's distinguished between the two users by citing the FA status of an article Connolley works on. That's a strange thing to hang COI on. Considering the list of liberals that Raul654's has produced to describe the AEI as a lobbying organization (an ironic act considering THF's supposed POV sourcing), it's not totally impossible that Raul654's preexisting biases drive his involvement here. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said from the beginning, the very fact that there is an arbitration to decide whether or not I should be treated with civility and whether or not editors are allowed to try to blackmail me demonstrates a pervasive problem with left-wing bias on Misplaced Pages that means that it is a waste of my time to be here. The fact that the arbitration has somehow been expanded to include non-controversial edits without any earlier dispute resolution in distinct violation of the arbitration rules also exhibits an appalling double-standard. Misplaced Pages was a hobby, and I'm not going to devote my scarce time playing a game to decide the scope of my participation in a hobby; I'll spend more time paragliding or writing instead. So Shankbone and his fellow POV-pushers win: he has successfully harassed me off of the site. And even if I were inclined to waste more time in this systematic violation of WP:BATTLE than I have already wasted, I'm certainly not going to waste time in a standardless kangaroo court where the people who were edit-warring in contradiction to WP:NPOVD are the ones judging me. One wonders, however, why Misplaced Pages wastes so much time on the motes and is ignoring the beams. If Misplaced Pages is so concerned about conflicts of interest, why are arbitrators allowed to resolve their own content disputes by voting for sanctions of those they disagree with? Shouldn't their edits be marked with stars or something so editors are given warning that they are not allowed to disagree with arbitrators' points of view? Raul654 is committing a far larger sin against the integrity of the project than anything I've been accused of. And the fact that his idiosyncratic view of COI applies only to right-wing editors and not to far more aggressive editors he agrees with (or, for that matter, himself) suggests other problems. THF 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff you point to was actually you edit warring against consensus, as my evidence shows. Three editors removed that tag, and when they did you called them vandals, including Raul654. --David Shankbone 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, I believed that removing a NPOV tag without explanation and contrary to WP:NPOVD and an RFC that agreed the page violated NPOV was considered vandalism; I didn't know who Raul654 was, so his removal of a legitimate tag without explanation struck me as a bad-faith edit. I now know that "vandalism" is a narrower concept. But my misuse of the word vandalism does not make Raul654's edit-warring and ignoring of policy any more appropriate, much less the fact that he is using his arbitrators' hat to carry his POV-pushing grudge. THF 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't the last time you called a long-standing editor a vandal, as the evidence shows. You never look at your own behavior, which has not made you particularly liked on this site; you only throw out accusations and level charges against people. You continue that behavior here. It's never you, THF, it's always everyone else. --David Shankbone 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Comment on contributions, not contributors

1) Except where a clear pattern emerges, an editor's work on wikipedia is more important than their identity, and each contributions should be (initially) taken on its own merits, without reference to the contributor or their other contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nobody could possibly follow this principle. Every editor has their karma. Fred Bauder 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is correct. THF had a long editing history on Sicko where nobody made any issue of his AEI status, even though it was proudly displayed on his User page. It was only when he tried to insert his own article into Sicko that it--correctly--became an issue. It was only on August 9th that because User:THF, 2/3rds of the way through the issue over his trying to insert into Sicko work he wrote. Then became even though the issue over that article was still in process. --David Shankbone 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by SamBC(talk) 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to assert that editors may never comment regarding another editor or even reference their other contributions. Personal comments should be kept to a minimum, but they may be relevant far before "a clear pattern emerges". --Iamunknown 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As Fred Bauder says, nobody is going to be able to follow this. If I see someone being unreasonable in one case, then I'm going to start evaluate their edits more closely than I would someone else's, even if no clear pattern has emerged. Of course, personal attacks are still bad, but this is worded much too broadly for a simple NPA principle. -Amarkov moo! 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Respecting expertise

2) It is appropriate to utilize the expertise of any expert who edits Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This principle is correct. But if I am an expert in legal liability, that expertise does not mean I am an expert in film; nor does it mean I am an expert on healthcare policy. Expertise is subject-specific. To hold one's self out as a "controversial expert" in an area where they are not an expert is, in principle, fallacious. So I think "When an expert edits Misplaced Pages in their field of expertise, it is appropriate to utilize that expertise." rings more true. --David Shankbone 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think his expertise could be characterized as lying in the area of political advocacy, which Sicko is an example of. Fred Bauder 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Political advocacy" isn't particularly a field, and if it is, the bar would be pretty amorphous for who qualifies as an expert. Experts become political advocates in their fields of expertise, which is what THF has become with liability. I was an Associate Chairman of the Georgia Federation of Teenage Republicans and youth coordinator for Newt Gingrich's 1990 re-election campaign, and I have been involved with politics since. I was a poll monitor in Cleveland during the last election, and there are few political issues I am not well-versed in. I went to a top law school and studied the ins and outs of our political and legal system, as well as legal philosophy. Sicko is a documentary film advocating for a change in healthcare policy. THF is an expert in neither of these areas; nor am I. My only point: he is not a controversial expert on these topics. Thus, he is not a "controversial expert" able to decide what qualifies as a documentary, nor does he have any particular expertise (beyond perhaps being well-versed) on national healthcare policy. --David Shankbone 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my earlier comment, mainly because I was confused as to how these principles operate; I do not believe this principle applies in this case. THF's edits to tort and liability-related articles are not in question here; that is his area of expertise. --David Shankbone 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Perhaps if you added "No undue reverence, however, should be held for the opinions of experts in one subject when they edit other subjects in which they have no such expertise." It's an important balance and one which applies in this case. Ossified 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what the fuss is about. It states "the expertise" of "the expert", not "amateur ramblings" of "someone who knows a lot about something else" (sarcastic language intended to make contrasting point obvious; no intent to offend or disparage proposer, commenters, or parties). What is determined to be "the expertise" of "this expert", in this case, is another issue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I should add my previous statement qualifies this entire section of discussion ("Respecting expertise"), not just Ossified's comment immediately above mine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) struck; still true, but fixed indenting reflects it better nowBaccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, because I had it myself: these are principles that are meant to apply in this case. Since the COI issue revolves around the Michael Moore-related issue, THF's "expertise" is irrelevant. --David Shankbone 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what's this principle about? David, as an expert photographer who has released numerous excellent images to the project? Or THF as an expert writer of right-wing op-ed, who has free contributed right-wing op-ed to the site? Or what? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you discount any expertise related to Sicko (in spite of the fact that both Michael Moore and THF are expert polemicists who could recognize an article's failure to present significant points of view, and neither are "healthcare policy experts"—whatever that means), many disputes involving THF are clearly in areas of his expertise. Competition law comes to mind, where THF's prior experience in antitrust lead him to immediately notice the massive POV problems in titling the dominant United States legal philosophy, the Chicago School, "laissez faire radicalism"—a heretofore unknown expression. Many other edits now complained about before ArbCom are similarly in topics of THF's expertise. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

3a) While users with outside interest in a subject should try to follow the recommendations given in the conflict of interest guideline, they are not prohibited from editing articles relating to their subject of interest. Occasional mistakes are tolerated as they are for any editor, so long as there is no pattern of policy violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. --David Shankbone 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The point, essentially, is that THF should not be sanctioned more harshly for any bad edits he may have made than someone else would be. -Amarkov moo! 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to amend your language then, e.g., "... as they are for any disinterested editor, ..." (emph mine for proposed addition). Or some similar clarification. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3b) While users with outside interest in a subject should try to follow the recommendations given in the conflict of interest guideline, they are not prohibited from editing articles relating to their subject of interest. Occasional mistakes are tolerated as they are for any other editor, so long as there is no pattern of policy violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per my suggestion above. Note addition of "other" (only change). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

4) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a behavioral guideline, advises editors to use caution when editing subjects regarding which they have a personal or professional interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, the general rule. Fred Bauder 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A good and fair synopsis. Clearly relevant per accusations of DS. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Activist editing

5) Editors at Misplaced Pages are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Cberlet's position. He is an activist, just as THF is. However, with occasional lapses, he has edited responsibly. THF's assertion that Cberlet is allowed to make POV edits here while THF is harassed and restricted bites. If that is the case, it needs to change. Fred Bauder 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The question is one of balance. If an article is POV and an editor with an activist agenda simply efforts to balance the POV out, then I think that is warranted. However, if an editor with an activist agenda seeks to replace one POV with their own, then it is not "possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda." I am not familiar with Cberlet or his edits, but in the case of THF, he was doing what I describe above, replacing one POV with his own. See my (incomplete) evidence, e.g. Robert Bork (removing pertinent information, changing an NPOV definition to a POV one), Jim Hood (edit-warring in the phrasing "wealthy trial lawyers" and directing readers to his self-authored criticism) and American Bar Association (removing the only balancing statement over judicial ratings, effort to have their magazine deleted, while simultaneously writing unsourced articles to propaganda and similarly notable magazine in whihc he has a COI) edits. --David Shankbone 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This proposal makes a false assumption. I wear several hats: an employed researcher, a freelance writer, and an activist. When I write freelance for print encyclopedias (and I have contributed to some half dozen), it is assumed that I will adopt the stance of what is essentially NPOV. What matters here is whether or not, over time, a Wiki editor is able to work collaboratively and craft fair and accurate entry text that is is NPOV. To assume an activist cannot achieve NPOV text editing is unfair and prejudicial.--Cberlet 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Cberlet. Where an article is currently POV-skewed against an activist's agenda, then correcting that is manifestly working towards NPOV and pursuing an activist agenda. Care should be taken by people in such circumstances, but that's about it. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one standard to judge this by is whether one activist replaces one POV with their own POV, as opposed to simply "explaining the other side." --David Shankbone 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be true in individual cases, but the general principle as given doesn't seem to be valid, is the point people are making. Just to keep on-topic, do you claim that the principle as given is valid? SamBC(talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that by definition, in editing a particular article, it is impossible to simultaneously "pursue...an activist agenda" and "pursue NPOV". To "pursue...an activist agenda" is different, however, from "being" an activist. Cberlet rightly points out that (s)he may be an activist in real life, but that doesn't preclude him/her from pursuing NPOV when editing. The only real question is whether one is "pursuing an agenda". An activist shouldn't be precluded from editing articles, but all editors, whether activists or not, should avoid pursuing an agenda. That is impossible to reconcile with NPOV. Ossified 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view. Activists are those familiar with those points of view. Fred Bauder 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This point really hinges on what "pursuing an activist agenda" means. This needs (IMO) to be clarified. I can see, for example, someone pursuing both that and NPOV by editing from their agenda's position to update a POV (the other way) article. In this sense I concur with Sam and David, and not with Ossified. However, it seems Oss is talking about a slightly different interpretation of what this pursuing is, and given that, I can concur as well. I reiterate that this is an ambiguity which it would do well to clarify. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Political orientation is immaterial

6a) Conflicts of interest, POV-pushing, and activist editing are no more or less acceptable from one political view than another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --David Shankbone 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please treat this as it's written, or propose an edit, rather than saying "so neonazi editors are no worse than laissez-faire economics supports?". SamBC(talk) 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As written seems acceptable: all three actions worrisome and antithetical to the project regardless of slant. This is to be differentiated, however, from WP:UNDUE, which I think was the point of your prophylactic request. Whether or not that part of policy is relevant here is another issue. I suggest adding "Edits informed by", "Edits inspired by", "Edits reflecting", or somesuch before first "Conflicts of interest, ..." since it seems you wish to reflect actions from positions; COI is simply another position. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

6b) POV-pushing, disruptive editing advancing a conflict of interest, and activist editing are no more or less acceptable from one point of view than another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per my suggestion above, with reworking for easier grammar parsing. Also generalized "political view" to any "point of view". "advancing a conflict of interest" is probably not ideal language -- suggestions welcome. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial experts

7) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, proposed Fred Bauder 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disagree that there is "controversial expert" involved here, per above. THF is an expert in tort and legal liability; his position as a "political advocate" is in these areas, but his edits to these issues are not raised in this arbitration. He is not an expert on healthcare policy or film. He is not cited for expertise in these areas. They are outside interests he holds. --David Shankbone 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to want to stovepipe this particular piece of political propaganda, categorizing it as "policy" or "film", but not as propaganda or political advocacy. Fred Bauder 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is more that it is not about tort or legal liability, THF's areas of expertise. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Question to David ShankBone: If THF's involvement in the areas of "healthcare policy or film" are simply based on "outside interests he holds," then what is the source of the conflict of interest you feel so strongly he has? Newyorkbrad 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will quote from the COI guidelines:

"Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

• THF, and his employer, makes this a personal, political and financial COI. His edits to Jim Hood, Robert Bork and the ABA articles also fall under here; arguably those last articles could be considered in his field of "expertise", although he wasn't making "expert" edits to those articles, but personal political POV edits, as the evidence I provided indicates. He was removing content and changing NPOV wording that had nothing to do with his expertise, but his own political POV.

"If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."

• THF working for AEI creates COI.

"Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"

• THF's Michael Moore criticism and his involvement with AEI qualifies.

"Linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles"

• Which THF did on many articles, all cited in evidence.

I could continue, but I think this makes these make the point. If I was to write an article criticizing Ted Frank based upon my experiences here, and it was published in Daily KOS or Huffington Post, it would create a COI for me to edit his article (indeed, I posit this arbitration creates one, as do our Michael Moore-related run-ins). But they do not make me an expert on THF, or on the AEI, or on Michael Moore, even if my article might discuss these things. I will say one thing: anyone reviewing my edits would be hard-pressed to find COI or POV edits I have made, and if a person has a question in that regard, feel free to raise it here or on my Talk page. --David Shankbone 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This language seems a mere rehashing of general WP principals applied to knowledgeable users. However, it might be prudent to consider that, as written, it subtlely might be taken to connote that such users are held to even higher standards than "regular" users, as it fails to mention those users (not unlike an apophase, which seems to make an implication about a subject just by mentioning it). In anticipation of this connotation being used in subsequent disputes (especially by Wikilawyers), I suggest to clarify this, that they (knowledgeable users) have no more or less rights or obligations than any other users. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I now see that this is taken verbatim from another RfArb, and was supported unanimously. I stand by my concern ,but acknowledge it may be perceived as nitpicking, so will selfwikibreak from this section. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (struck per this update Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Harassment of controversial experts

8) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, proposed Fred Bauder 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hmmmm. I'd not say that pressing for a resolution of a disputed COI is actually harassment, althoguh this should have gone to dispute resolution a lot earlier. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

COI and HARASS

9) The conflict of interest and harassment policies, as currently written, are fundamentally in conflict with each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, they are, but they are both valid. The question is how to reconcile them in practice. Fred Bauder 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The elephant in the room. I've on multiple occasions considered blanking COI/N for this very reason. --Random832 04:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. As has been discussed on WT:COI, there is indeed a disconnect between policy and how COI/N currently operates. However, I think the fault is not with WP:COI, but with the popular (and incorrect) understanding of it on COI/N. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(I proposed an alternate version, then removed it since it was little more than a platform for my own personal opinion of COI) - Regardless, this issue does need to be dealt with, and is highly relevant to this case. --Random832 11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that THF himself has run afoul of this contradiction, in an incident he mentions in his opening statement. And I'm not all that sure that there wasn't some element of anti-conservative bias in the reaction in that case. It needs to be clarified _exactly_ to what degree it is acceptable to point out conflicts of interest for someone who hasn't voluntarily disclosed them (or who has withdrawn such disclosure)--Random832 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this call for clarification per Random832. While in principle pointing out such a COI, or potential for COI, can be constructive and good faith, I also note that it is a favorite tactic of outright trolls to claim that one who knows a lot about something is probably affiliated with it and stands to gain by whitewashing the article about it. This type of behavior is clearly not something that should be encouraged. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Update It behoves me to qualify that this is not a claim that either party here did this, but rather only that I have seen it done. Of course, I reserve the right to make such a claim in the future, if I see it appropriate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

10) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems a very good and fair synopsis. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

11) While Misplaced Pages does not aspire to contain THE TRUTH, information included must be factually based: verifiable and from a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As currently designed, this is a fair synopsis. The issue of whether it should aspire towards truth, so long as verifiability, reiability, etc., are not sacrificed one iota, is an issue for another time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

12a) Original research (OR) is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Citing to a publication for a proposition made by the publication related to the subject of a Misplaced Pages article does not violate WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Taken directly from WP:NOR, as David accuses me of violating this policy in his arbitration case. THF 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is correct. To be noted: such a lack of violation of the OR policy implies neither adherence nor nonadherence to the policies/guidelines regarding reliable sources, verifiability, and conflict of interest. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. When the research is your own novel theory, publishing it offsite first does not allow you to do an end-run around WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

12b) The Original Research guideline should take into some account the quality of the publication and, if an editor is proposing their own work in that publication for use in that article, should also take into account that person's relationship to the publication.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. There is a wide variety of publications, and types of "publishing." Being "published" on one's employer's website for their own publication that is only print-produced six time a year is different than being published in the print publication of the journal Foreign Affairs. A 9 minute YouTube "film", (Uninsured in America), is different than the film Sicko. A blog like Overlawyered.com is different than the blogs of the Wall Street Journal. Quality, and the proposer's relationship to a publication, should be factored in when saying, "It was published, therefore it is not Original Research." --David Shankbone 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The quality of publication in this case, The American (magazine), is an issue I think is evident with the title it assigned the web post, "Sicko’s Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too". Not once does the web article question the box office numbers of the film. Instead, it questions the lack of inclusion by Box Office MoJo of certain films it deems should be included. The title is mis-leading, and such a title would be rejected in most quality publications for the fact alone. The article itself makes no attempt to discern why MoJo doesn't include those films, it just asserts they should. MoJo qualifies that they only consider "Documentary as sub-genre of Non-Fiction." They also state that until 2005, IMAX films did not follow "serious" accounting principles. Nor does Ted Frank address "Could these additional films not be seen as documentaries?" or explain why they should be. If the checked facts are that the cited websites report those numbers and that the additional films exist, then the "facts" are not in dispute. But fact-checking goes beyond that. It goes to "Why are these films not included and should they be included?" This is where the "fact-checked, published" web article runs into Original Research. Ted Frank, its author, is not a film critic, has no film expertise, nor does the publication who ran the article with a title that suggests that the box office numbers are "fuzzy". From my perspective, this challenged the notion of a fact-checked publication and made the piece Original Research put out by the proposer's think tank. --David Shankbone 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not going to reargue the content dispute here, but David once again makes a series of false factual statements that, in any event, are entirely irrelevant to the repeated false WP:NOR accusations he made. (And he knows that these factual statements are false, because I have corrected him before.) If someone wishes to pursue any of these false allegations further, please email me, and I'll happily clarify issues. User:THF 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems nothing more than a reorganization of preexisting policies/guidelines, including notability, RS, verifiability, and COI, all to be put under (at least to some extent) OR. This does not seem to propose any new content, nor clarify any existing. I do not see any advantage to doing this, and have to admit the intellectual structure which results is less clean. For this reason I have to oppose this. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is little evidence of bias toward editors of the left

13) There is little evidence to support the notion that there is a bias toward editors who are left-leaning over editors who are right-leaning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be a finding of fact. I think what is happening is that POV left-wing editors have generally tended to be more sophisticated than right-wing ones and have gotten away with more as a result. Fred Bauder 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This argument of Misplaced Pages's supposed left-leaning bias is raised in discussion as a strawman argument, used to say "If you do not agree with my POV on this issue, then you prove me correct that there is an anti-right bias." It's not a facts-based method of analysis. In my opinion, this strawman has been at work in this ArbCom, most evidently in the consistent comparisons of this situation and its editors with unrelated situations and editors, obfuscating the situation at hand. --David Shankbone 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Object. This is an empirical proposition, not a principle of decision. THF 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And I note that the empirical proposition is falsified by the statement of an arbitrator that it is "disruptive" to refer to the existence of the point of view that Chavez is a dictator shared by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Foreign Policy magazine, and the US State Department-- but it is not disruptive or provocative to call Hillary Clinton a "vote whore" for criticizing Obama's position on Chavez. If anyone wants to know why I'm not editing Misplaced Pages any more, they can look at that exchange. THF 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The bias in Misplaced Pages is toward facts, not towards the right or the left. Hugo Chavez may well assume dictatorial powers, but right now, he's a democratically elected leader, regardless of the pronouncements of the United States government, or persons who aspire to carry Florida in the presidential election. If you couldn't put it in an article, what is the point of putting it in a comment other than to start an argument? Fred Bauder 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A google search for dictator "hugo chavez" wikipedia returns 88,000 hits, mostly complaints about Misplaced Pages. Fred Bauder 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:JRSP#President_vs._Dictator. Fred Bauder 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand here: "There are those who call Chavez a dictator" is unacceptable discourse because one "couldn't put it in article" (though it is, in fact, in a Misplaced Pages article, because it is a fact that there are those who call Chavez a dictator); so what is the status of "Hillary Clinton is a vote whore" and "George Bush lives in a separate conceptual universe" as acceptable discourse? If merely expressing right-wing opinions is "disruptive" because left-wingers will disagree with them, then it should be at least as equally disruptive for others to express opinions that I would disagree with. Or, we could understand that people will express their points of view on a talk page in the course of discussing how best to improve an article or explaining the nature of an edit, and accept that without seeking to punish or condemn one side. I'm happy to comply with whatever Misplaced Pages standards are for acceptable discourse (and that should be written into WP:CIVIL rather than being an unwritten rule expressed for the first time in an arbcom without previous warning), but I do object if there is not a consistent standard on this, and I am held to a higher standard because I am perceived as right-wing. THF 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well, there's the undeniable fact that Jimbo Wales describes himself as a libertarian, & other respected contributors likewise self-identify themselves as "politically conservative". However, political terms "right-wing", "left-wing" & their attending labels (e.g. "conservative", "Republican", "Democratic", etc.) do not accurately map outside the US. In other words, what someone inside the US thinks of as a "left-wing" POV may be a "centrist" or "right-wing" outside -- & vice versa. I don't think this point, well-intended as it is, is constructive. -- llywrch 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit it has problems (see below), but conversely to your UScentric issue, there certainly are forms of bias I cannot see, not because I have that particular bias, but because there are no analogies in the divisions of thought which I do see. Just because one cannot perceive such a division doesn't mean others who can cannot discuss it meaningfully. Ironically, Jimbo some time ago thought it did have a slight "liberal" bias, but he later (for reasons of his own perception, of damage control, or both), said something to the effect that most of it (bias) was now gone. Go figure. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal, but point out it is very difficult to falsify.

My experience with WP (which may differ from the next person's) is that there are small topical pockets where either left-, right-, or even up-, down-, in-, out- and in-between- bias seems to exist. However, I feel comfortable explaining in all cases I have seen that it was due more to the ability of a quite small number of like minded editors being able to game the system much better than another group or groups, the fact that some esoteric areas just don't get a lot of traffic, and thus POV lingers since we can't neutralize what we don't see, or some peculiar combination of both.

With that said, it is my general observation that on average, left-POV pushing editors or groups of editors are more fluent at systemgaming than right-POV pushing editors or groups thereof. But of course this is an extraordinarily wide brush and must be used with extreme care: specifically, I acknowledge that many editors with POVs do not do this at all, and further I am not accusing any party/parties in this proceeding of such gaming. I bring it up only to say I can understand why someone from the right (or even center) might in good faith perceive that there is a left-bias in Misplaced Pages, and to note this: if there were such a wikiwide bias as the proposal denies, it would manifest itself in just such an appearance of asymmetry with respect to the ability to work within the system by different points of view. There is no foolproof way that I know of to distinguish true wikiwide bias (if it exists) from differential systemgaming skills. This is what I meant by this proposal is hard to falsify. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Update per Will and Sam below: I stand by my previous comments, but agree that rather this should all be in findings of fact, and not principle. I also am tempted to refactor party comments to the right place, although acknowledge doing so may somewhat hinder following the dicussion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As falsification goes, WP:POINT and WP:SOCK prohibits me from hiring an editor to follow WMC to multiple articles and Misplaced Pages policy boards to complain that someone who writes for Environmental Media Services shouldn't be writing on any environment-related articles or citing to his blog because of COI, and reverting all of WMC's edits, and calling him a troll, and telling him that his picture is ugly, just to see how quickly that someone would be blocked, if not indef-blocked, after disregarding multiple warnings. But my over-under on that scenario is maybe 24 hours, and probably less. (As it is, User:Wikidea still hasn't been so much as included into this arbitration after all of that conduct against me, and he's happily reverted my edits against an RFC consensus once I withdrew from the project. Shankbone saw all that conduct, and considers him an ally. ) I have had admins say ludicrously uncivil things to me, simply because of my employer, things that if someone were to say about Cberlet or WMC almost certainly would have resulted in an instant block. Perhaps admin incivility is a problem among left-wing editors, too, but I have yet to see an example. If I perceive bias here, it's for a good reason. The only time someone was blocked for actions they took against me, it took NLT violations and a confession of off-wiki harassment, and even then, JzG argued that I should be indef-blocked, too. THF 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

THF, I think you are making inapt comparisons. On Misplaced Pages, reputations matter. For instance, I think that if any number of the things said to you were said to Cool Hand Luke, who has a good reputation and is "right-leaning", the things you decry not having happened to Wikidea on your behalf would have happened. Your time on Misplaced Pages hasn't made you a particularly sympathetic character. You engage often in spats and disputes, you continuously level unmeritorious charges of policy and guidelines violations that others feel have no merit (see my August evidence of warnings to you), that when you do have a substantive complaint it perhaps falls on deaf ears. When you make statements like you made above, you show you have not examined your own behavior in any meaningful way, and that you don't realize you have a poor reputation on Misplaced Pages when it comes to discussion, consensus and assuming good faith. You have a reputation for conflict, and when you engage in so much conflict it tends to blind people to meritorious claims of a problem. Even when they see you do have a valid grip, you have often engaged in problematic behavior yourself, making people who are hard-pressed for time or don't have the constitution to want to sort out who is worse. Perhaps if you sat back and thought about it, you would see that inaction to issues you raise is not because of a bias against you because of your ideology; it's a bias against the way you edit. Reputations matter. --David Shankbone 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably true. It might not be an actual left-wing bias, but instead a kind of de facto seniority accorded to editors who tend to be liberal due to self-selection or other benign causes. Even if that's the case, THF could still have a complaint: I think that all Wikipedians should be treated equally, regardless of their seniority or admin status.

All this said, I think Baccyak4H articulated most of my sentiments very well. All broad generalizations (including THF's) seem a little dubious to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to seniority, but to the way one conducts himself. THF is able to make the case he has some valid complaints, and he does. But he also has a problematic history that really has not changed since the User:Jance episode; he just cites to policy more. If he made efforts to "get along" a little more, not wiki-link to policy and guideline in every edit summary or Talk page comment, not make vague references to policy violations others do not see, and other ways he chooses to conduct himself, I think there would be a lot more sympathy for him and his complaints. The phrases "Boy who cried wolf" and "Choose your battles" come to mind. --David Shankbone 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. On a tangent: as a show of good faith, would you give User:Guettarda a warning? I never looked that exchange before and I'm frankly shocked by it. I haven't seen THF make comparably uncivil remarks. He's not prone to saying things like "aw, cute Chavez apologist wants to issue warnings," but Guettarda has done precisely that toward THF. Cool Hand Luke 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would need to familiarize myself with the situation more, but just reading what you linked to, I see "Both of you knock it off, please. Arguably THF began the provocation by gratuitously templating a long-term regular but there's no call for upping the ante. User:Raymond Arritt 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)" and also "It appears to me that THF boldfaced the wrong part of WP:BLP. The fact that Wonkette is not self-published kind of eliminates the clause THF cited from having any relevance in this instance. User:Ossified 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)". This illustrates my points above exactly: It is often difficult to figure out who is the "most wrong" in THF's disputes. It's rarely a clear-cut answer, as it often is in the vast majority of disputes. --David Shankbone 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can read the exchange, and I don't know who was right about the content. The point is that the editor did not feel the need to address the content, but instead attacked THF personally. You see that this is wrong, right? Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked Guettarda to make a statement since THF's side is being put forth as evidence of some kind of bias and such an issue is being made of this. --David Shankbone 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fond of pursuing THF's claim of systemic site-wide bias. There might be some bias, but I think that these sweeping generalizations are not helpful to this case and they're probably unfalsifiable. However, Guettarda made repeated personal attacks—including attacks after a third-party warning, stunning attacks in the face of THF's apologies. These attacks seem worse than any NPA violations you've documented against THF, but you are apparently blind to them. Some of the editors involved in this dispute exhibit a stunning bias where they think conservative editors are incapable of uttering truth. Some users believe NPA and CIVIL take a holiday around conservatives. I don't care to prove that Misplaced Pages is biased, but you, David, are biased enough to not appreciate clear blackletter violations against the other side.

Unless there's a good objection, I will propose a finding on Guettarda's attacks. Like Wikidea's attacks, I think these show THF's remarkable civility in the face of spite. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You kind of sound like Hypno in this post. What, exactly, do you hope to achieve with a finding on Guettarda that is relevant to the issue at hand? Should we do findings on THF, too? That would be even more relevant here, and there are findings that can be made. --David Shankbone 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: "THF remained WP:COOL in the face of personal attacks." Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this a serious proposal, "CHL, THF's advocate"? How about "THF made good some good edits"? I think User:Raymond arritt's (an admin) pointing out that "Arguably THF began the provocation by gratuitously templating a long-term regular" doesn't sound so "WP:COOL" to me. Are proposals like yours what ArbCom is for? --David Shankbone 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "THF remained WP:COOL in the face of personal attacks." he should be complimentented for his amazing civility durring this process. Most evidenced by the fact that the worst dirt that can be dug up about him is he calls many views left-wing and compare that to what H.E. wrote constantly. 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. After that RA's warning THF struck out his template warning, apologized, and endured two more gratuitous personal attacks without even slightly responding in kind—and that's even if you think that a DTTR violation gives users like Guettarda free NPA swipes, which it doesn't. Another good example of THF's superior composure is in the face of Wikidea's personal attacks, already noted as probable violations (problematically, since he's not a party). This kind of proposal ties them all together, commenting on THF's behavior without bringing other parties in. Cool Hand Luke 05:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can always use more findings of fact about behavior, so perhaps you should make your proposal. --David Shankbone 05:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And the fact remains that JzG has repeatedly and tendentiously called for my ouster from the Misplaced Pages project simply because of my employer, and I have not seen that sort of blanket demand made by admins of editors who have similar employers that are not right-wing. It's not like WMC or Cberlet aren't getting into contentious disputes: it's that their contentious disputes are quickly short-circuited by blocks or threatened blocks against those who get into disputes with them, while those who target me are allowed to let the dispute multiply by repeating identical false allegations over and over and over, and then say "Look how disruptive THF's presence is because I've complained about the same 9 August content dispute twelve times since it was closed". And is David seriously contending that Wikidea's conduct is acceptable because I am not senior enough to merit civil treatment? And vis-a-vis Guetterda, how quickly would someone be blocked if he repeatedly edit-warred to insert a anonymously-sourced blog-cited rumor about an obscure twenty-something left-winger of marginal notability, but somehow that exchange about the right-winger Ben Domenech on the Regnery Publishing COATRACK merited me four warnings for one single edit summary that I apologized for, and Guetterda got one "Both of you knock it off" and never apologized. THF 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your post above and desire to re-hash aging disputes indicates you do not see your problematic editing behavior. --David Shankbone 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't quite understand how reputation has been interpreted by anyone as "Seniority" - I certainly didn't make that assertion, and I thought my comments were quite clear it's your behavior that gives you a poor reputation, not your longevity. --David Shankbone 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll remind involved parties that there is a special section, "Comment by parties:", reserved for their use. Regarding the proposition, if bias is alleged then there should be evidence of the bias. It isn't clear that there is favoritism towards Cberlet or WMC, but if there were it certainly isn't clear that the bias is due to political affilation. It could as easily be a bias against lawyers and in favor of scientists and journalists. Allegations of systemic bias against large classes of society are probably best left out of this arbitration, unless a party can provide positive evidence that he has been treated poorly due to his political leanings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that this is more of a proposed finding of fact, rather than a principle. "There should be no bias..." would be a principle, for example. SamBC(talk) 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of bias: This is one from my own files about a now PERM BANNED editor called H.E. he wrote;

H.E's classic I'm not anti-semitic i just hate "the Jews"

I am keeping this bit of filth for evidence and show.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FHis_excellency%2FEvidence&diff=69701704&oldid=69699623

In my own defense: A man has a right to his opinion. I do feel Timothy Usher is a bigot. I do feel that Jews are screwing up the planet (though admittedly Muslims, by far, surpass the Jews in their capacity to destroy things). Look at history. Only recently has it become the norm to like Jews. That only came about after certain countries (eg America) adopted them as the collective dame-in-distress needing shelter and protection. Sort of the precursor to the chihuahua. Before then, Jews were hated in Europe and America alike..And everywhere else. We all know Jews were once banished from most culturally superior European countries. The only reason why Poland took them in was that they had loads of money. Probably the same reason why Washington panders to the now. Point is, alot of people dislike Jews. I'm entitled to, so long as I don't demonstrate that dislike on articles dealing with the topic of Jews. We don't penalize people for not liking things, do we? His Excellency... 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange that this an several other comments did not see him go Arb Com for a long time (over six more months i think), yet THF who has no long blocklog and has not used racist and sexist language gets taken to Arb Com. THATS BIAS and it doesn't get any clearer. 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone would have had to file a request for arbitration. Fred Bauder 13:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes like the admins i showed this diff to at the time, but they didn't file an arb com (i was a noob at the time). 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/His excellency was already open when H.E. made this appalling comment, and resulted in his being banned for 6 months by early September 2006 (later extended to indefinite). Newyorkbrad 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me Newyorkbrad but i'm going to remove my comments as this is not going to achive anything. 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are nearly 2,000,000 articles on Misplaced Pages. The number of edits that occur each day must be somehwat mind-numbing. Anyone who can claim, with a straight face, to be knowledgeable of any sort of systemic bias for or against any particular political POV is blowing smoke. The fact is, the bias one sees is an artifact of the articles one chooses to edit, as well as who the other editors on those pages are. Some editors are more combative than others. If you are likewise combative and have a diametrically opposed political POV than other editors on a particular page, you are more likely to see a failure of your edits to pass muster as a systemic bias. That, however, is a problem of perception (due to the necessarily limited scope of the number of pages one person can edit) rather than evidence of systemic bias. Along similar lines, I can't see the relevance of repeated mentions of Cberlet or WMC as having a bearing on this RfA. If THF has a problem with Cberlet or WMC there are mechanisms available on Misplaced Pages for those concerns to be addressed, but they don't serve a purpose in this RfA except to sidetrack discussion of the actions of the principals involved. Ossified 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The systemic biases of wikipedia are well known and wikipedia has policy and and other methods to deal with it (such as "This Article is not writen from a worldwide point of view" tags). I don't have a problem with Cberlet or WMC (never heard of either of them on wiki before this or IRL) and i don't think THF has either, they are just being used as examples of users who are just like THF yet are not brought to spurious wikilegal proceedings. 15:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

14) From Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not: Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Importing personal conflicts appears relevant to me in this case. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't import an external conflict; it's homegrown here. But it is relevant; regardless of where it started, the behavior here is the problem. Georgewilliamherbert 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors with a viewpoint

15) Provided they conform to Misplaced Pages's basic policies of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research editors with strong political views are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages, provided they do not engage in disruptive behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral editors

15.1) There is no requirement that editors be "neutral" nor that articles be "neutral". The viewpoint of an editor with an opinion is welcome as a part of neutral point of view which contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruptive editors

16) The editing of users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by using confrontational tactics or habitually making provocative assertions may be restricted. In extreme case they may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors who assert their expertise should not expect anonymity

17) An editor who asserts personal expertise on a topic as a justification for an edit may have to reveal his identity in order to establish his credentials.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It may not be possible to be an anonymous expert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This is something that I addressed (perhaps obliquely) a couple of times in other sections related to expertise. If someone claims authority on a particular subject and if that expertise is challenged, how can they prove their expertise in a way that isn't tied to their identity? It may be possible, but my feeble mind can't determine how. Ossified 11:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair point, I think. Especially after Essjay. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

THF

1) THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is known to be a fellow at a prominent conservative think tank.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FWIW, that think tank has rules on the activities of its fellows, including policies on disclosure of identity and affilation, and of conflicts of interest. While it isn't the job of Misplaced Pages to enforce or even consider the employement terms of editors, we should be sensitive to the special needs of some editors regarding their participation in this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. They do have high standards of conduct and from my limited interaction it appears THF follows them. Although they do not seem particularly applicable to THF on Misplaced Pages ("Many also include such a disclaimer in books, articles, speeches, and other presentations addressed to the general public, especially when they are addressing subjects of active controversy and disagreement--but the disclaimer is often well understood in these contexts and the appropriateness of stating it explicitly varies from case to case."), They do seem to indicate he should be reporting his activities on here to AEI ("AEI scholars, fellows, and officers provide annual reports to AEI's president listing all of their outside activities; the president then provides a summary report to the Outside Activities Committee of the AEI Board of Trustees, which includes at least one long-time trustee and one new trustee. The president may bring particular issues to the attention of the Outside Activities Committee or to an internal committee of senior scholars and fellows for their review and counsel. The Outside Activities Committee also reviews the commercial, professional, and civic engagements of individuals being considered for election to the Board of Trustees.") That's his own personal matter, though, and irrelevant to the ArbCom. --David Shankbone 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this enumeration puzzling. What exactly was the purpose of it, since by your own admission it is irrelevant to this proceeding? I would like to know, as I cannot think of a good reason, and I assume there is one, but other editors with less good faith than me might come along and accuse this of being an attempt at subtle intimidation of THF. By answering this, you disarm the potential for that possibility. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to ask a question, just ask instead of goad. Beback brought up that there are special needs from AEI's website, and I pointed out that there really aren't any I see applicable, and that THF follows the standards of conduct AEI has set out for him. THF has put himself out as a "controversial expert" and used his position at AEI in that regard, so it's not so off topic, but I'm not the one who brought it up, so perhaps your question is better suited to that person. --David Shankbone 05:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, asking is exactly what I did, along with a large additional effort to demonstrate that it was so and not goading, baiting or trolling. I gather that effort was ineffective, that and you will note you didn't answer my question. Although in the end, I have less to lose in this discussion, so no need to knock your socks off trying again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Learning from experts

2) Experts may from time to time edit Misplaced Pages. When they do, their interaction with our policies and practices provides a valuable opportunity to interpret and refine those policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

True. Especially when it involves experts editing in their field of expertise. --David Shankbone 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case he can be expected to be sensitive to point of view. Fred Bauder 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, THF is not an expert. His expertise is in legal liability, not in film or healthcare policy. --David Shankbone 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should be a proposed principle, no? - Crockspot 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a fact. Any talented person who edits offers an opportunity to learn, and to refine policy. Fred Bauder 02:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney

3) Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested a citation for a statement that already had a valid citation (.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems a somewhat odd place to begin analyzing the case. Ryan may not have noticed that the cited source, whose citation footnote appeared after the following sentence, covered both sentences. In any event, this incident by itself appears trivial, and Ryan Delaney is not a party to the case. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was in evidence, and while your explanation is likely the cause, it happens to have been the first diff I looked at. Fred Bauder 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Characterization

4) This edit, considered together with its comment, poses interesting questions: is it appropriate to so identify that organization, and if the brief characterization was POV, was its removal appropriate?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question Fred Bauder 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting characterizes the organization as "progressive", a euphemism for left wing or radical. Perhaps "progressive media watchdog organization" would have served. Fred Bauder 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The characterization should be a fair one. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting self-identifies as a "progressive group" and as a "national media watch group". The term "watchdog" may have connotations that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The phrase "progressive media watch group" is ambiguous: is the group progressive, or is it the progressive media that they are watching? A neutral, fair, accurate construction would be something along the lines of "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." or "The progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group..." Beyond that, I disagree with Fred Bauder's assertion that "progressive" is a euphemism for "radical" (except perhaps on certain talk radio programs). The term more accurately describes left-leaning people who see certain distinctions between their own political beliefs and those who self-describe as liberals. Neither "progressive" nor "liberal" is synonymous with "far left" or "radical", except to the extent that there has been a concerted effort by some on the right to demonize both words equally. Ossified 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like double talk to me. Fred Bauder 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not challenging, just asking, in what way (does it sound like double talk)? SamBC(talk) 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that while Oss's comments were not the easiest to follow, they were on to something. I wish to point out that this issue of labeling and characterizing sources goes to the heart of NPOV: the idea of connotations, of weaselly words and pigeonholing labels. For a hyperbolic example, just note the effect of calling something an "attack site": one could (correctly) call such a thing an "negative opinion disseminator", but the impact and reading of both terms is far different. (Disclaimer: this is neither to assert nor deny that any site mentioned here is indeed such a site; rather that the label has been tossed around so much that I hope it helps everyone understand my point.)

In general, identifying the nature of a source gives important context and aids in attaining NPOV. I would suggest that, to answer the original question, if the source was characterized with POV, removal of the characterization is OK, although an alternative could be to give a better characterization. Neutrality does not equal emptiness; there are such things as activists, promoters (self or otherwise), and ax-grinders. Calling a spade a spade is in no way anti-"generic unnamed garden tool" POV pushing. But, this merely moves POV disagreements up one level of discussion, from the content to the source nature. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think consistency is the issue here. If, for example, AEI is referenced as a "conservative think tank", then FAIR should be referenced as a "liberal media watchdog group" - if AEI is unadorned, then FAIR should be too. POV comes into play here when we qualify mentions of groups affiliated with one side while not qualifying groups affiliated with the other. ATren 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe ATren hits the nail on the head here. I further believe this ties into my comment on the use of political labels above: unless opinions on a given topic fall into identifiable schools of thought or factions, tying people or organizations to these labels only causes needless wrangling over whether they are accurate. -- llywrch 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence storage

5) Evidence storage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an alternate account of THF. He has collected evidence regarding this matter at User talk:Evidence storage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted Fred Bauder 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ES's edits make that pretty clear. Has either editor explicitly acknowledged this? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THF was the target of harassment

6) THF was harassed by Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , , , .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Although I disagree with these edits, I do not see how they are relevant. --David Shankbone 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Factually true, but unless Wikidea is going to be added as a party, irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He, might be, but let's see. I have noticed him in. Fred Bauder 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly true, but I too fail to see how it impacts this proceeding. No harm in bringing him in (unless he starts trolling). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. There have been some questions as to why THF was so intent on people not using his real name on-wiki, and I believe some have even implied that THF was trying to hide his identity in bad faith. But all along THF claimed he wanted to stop using his real name to avoid harassment - this very personal attack demonstrates the level of harassment to which THF was being subjected. ATren 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MichaelMoore.com is not an attack site

7) This screenshot did not qualify MichaelMoore.com as an attack site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, before a site would qualify as an attack site, the nastiness would have to be several orders of magnitude greater. Fred Bauder 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --David Shankbone 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's leave BADSITES out of this. This proposed policy is for the community to accept or (probably) reject on its merits. This whole edit war is incidental to any behavior of the parties. If it's really necessary to decide this issue, there's at least a consensus that it was not an attack page when the link to edit THF's user page was removed. No such consensus existed for the prior version you point to. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think on its face it was not a question that it was an attack site and it is very pertinent to the issue at hand. I do not think it was an attack site even with the links present. I am happy to re-phrase the question to "This screenshot did not qualify MichaelMoore.com as an attack site regardless of whether there were links to edit Misplaced Pages or not." The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to edit the pages; having someone direct others to do so to communicate with an editor or to edit pages about one's own work did not qualify it as an attack site, regardless. --David Shankbone 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but many editors and at least one admin disagree in the discussion cited above. There does not seem to be consensus that it is or is not an attack site. There is not even consensus that "attack sites" are recognized by policy. If ArbCom is really interested in this issue, those who edit warred over these links here and elsewhere should be made parties to proceedings, but I think there is no need to carve new BADSITES-related policy to decide this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) See my new proposal below. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly think the issue should be addressed by ArbCom, because THF said it was an attack site and said he wanted it de-linked. THF's issue with MichaelMoore.com consumed the ANI board for days. --David Shankbone 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I too believe this is critical to this case because the violation of WP:HARASS in the posting then re-posting then edit warring to keep on talk space the link to MM.com was a crucial point in the interreactions of THF and David and others (including me as i edit warred to enforce WP:HARASS). This screenshot clearly has both the users legal name and Username, and this is a Privacy violation as defined in WP:HARASS. Thus i edit warred to enforce the word MUST in this quote from WP:HARASS. "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. 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. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking." Ive added the bolding. I believe that this arbcom must rule some way on this central issue, it may be that you think i was wrong or david or both of us or none but some statement needs to be made about these events. 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ArbCom should rule, but they should do so in a separate action. The editors lined up in this dispute are the same as those lined up in other disputes. As it is, even the michaelmoore.com edit war was only tangentially related to THF based on an odd comment he made and immediately clarified that he simply wanted the standard treatment (unfortunately, the standard treatment turned out to be a pan-project edit war). I hope that this arbitration remains a case focused on COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no time like the present. This, to me, is a major issue in this case and deserves a ruling here and now. This relates to COI since THF had an outside public dispute with Michael Moore, that Moore acknowledged on his website. THF said it was an attack site and said he wanted it de-linked. I've already provided the diffs for that. He brought a public battle to Misplaced Pages. --David Shankbone 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he asked what the standard procedure was, unless one assumes bad faith—reading his question mark as a battle cry. At any rate, this absurd war was driven by several other parties who have also driven other wars. It's these parties who should be the subject of their own arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not fall on the "assume good faith" argument to get around the fact that THF said what he said and said what he wanted, just because he backtracks now. It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War; combined with his attack piece he wrote on Moore, and his edit-warring with POV tags, he has a clear COI and should not bring his public battle with Moore to Misplaced Pages. I think the issue is clear: if you are working on something on the outside, don't bring it inside - stay away from those articles. And as THF admitted, "I've since written an article about the movie, and have another one in the hopper; since the article has been published, I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI." But he didn't stop - that was August 23 he wrote that, and one only need to look at the Sicko history to see his substantive edits, including the criticism of the WHO (not Sicko) and adding POV tags to the article after he himself said he had an arguable COI. --David Shankbone 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear he instigated the Michael Moore War" does not logically follow from his admission of a potential COI with regards to his published article. The war was instigated by the same parties who have fought other wars and who will continue to fight until ArbCom rules on them. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

THF raised the issue, argued for de-linking, and he was the one who brought up SlimVirgin. Here's a great opportunity to rule on the issue, since neither principal in this dispute, THF and David Shankbone, are the parties you mention but were swept up in the same problem: THF claiming MichaelMoore.com is an attack site requiring de-linking, and DSB finding this an abusive application of policy. Since the issue is not limited to a small group of people, but spreads to other long-standing editors, it's clearly a problem that needs clarification. --David Shankbone 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

7b) This screenshot of MichaelMoore.com does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Question: since you are proposing this question, you concede that the words "CLICK here to edit Ted Frank's Misplaced Pages page" (and the highlight of those words to show it provided a link to edit) does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked? Because then your 7b as you propose it is correct in my opinion. --David Shankbone 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Proposed. This way ArbCom avoids the use of "attack sites" altogether, avoiding a tacit endorsement of BADSITES. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This screenshot clearly has both the users legal name and Username, and this is a Privacy violation as defined in WP:HARASS as "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment" and as such is harassment and MUST be removed. 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

7c) This screenshot of MichaelMoore.com--even if it contained links to edit THF's or Sicko's pages--does not provide evidence that the site should have been de-linked or that it constituted an "attack site".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --David Shankbone 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

8) Sicko World Health Organization edit RFC

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interesting. To me the COI closure shows THF's tendency to see his own bias as neutral. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

THF edited COI guidelines during a COI involving himself

9) THF edited the COI guidelines while he himself was the subject of a COI/N.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While true, this finding is not significant. Any user may attempt to refine policy. Fred Bauder 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --David Shankbone 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not certain that this is relevant - those edits do not appear to be in any way controversial, don't actually change anything, and merely clarify what's already said. The nutshell was undergoing a lot of editing around that time. SamBC(talk) 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is raised in my defense. To edit COI guidelines in your favor while you yourself are the subject of a COIN is not good faith. What he did is not actionable, but it serves to establish that THF's behavior during disputes was less than optimal. His complaints of harassment are met with how he conducted himself when other editors attempted to have good faith assessments of his edits and proposed edits of articles. When one is the subject of a COIN, it is not the time to be editing the guidelines. There's plenty of other people and time for that. It served to undermine his good faith, which in the words of Amarakov, "If I see someone being unreasonable in one case, then I'm going to start evaluate their edits more closely than I would someone else's." Since my own behavior is in question here, I posit that actions such as these gave cause for me to evaluate THF's edits more closely. --David Shankbone 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not established that the change was controversial or bad for the project. "The rules" around here are not immutable, and it is normal if perhaps not routine for them to get updated or clarified in the process of looking at issues. It's factually true that he changed them; that doesn't prove anything. Georgewilliamherbert 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As I explained, my own behavior here is an issue, and THF made charges that I was following his edits and WP:STALKing him. The above evidence is that in the midst of my COI he was editing the guidelines, in his favor, and that was one cause to examine his edits. That's all I'm trying to "prove". --David Shankbone 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The question regarding your conduct isn't whether you followed him around; absent access to the Checkuser tool and webserver logs, it's probably impossible to figure out what articles and pages you read and looked at. And we don't really care... We don't have any policy issues with anyone looking at anything. The policy issues (WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking, etc) are whether you responded to his edits appropriately. To the extent that you believe that you're defending yourself by having proposed this, you're actually demonstrating our point - the behaviour you are listing that THF did was not by normal standards a problem. We don't care if you read every edit he made for a couple of months; what you felt you had to complain about or try to act based on, including what you felt you had to include here as evidence, is the question. That you feel that these particular edits were part of a justificiation for your responses indicates that you were reacting to his edits in a manner inconsistent with the body of WP editor/admin consensus on whether THF was editing appropriately. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the previous thread (SamBC's): this happened. I also concur that the situation as presented by the proposed edits is not in and of themselves problematic. However, I acknowledge that in general this Nomic-type editing should be discouraged, say as a guideline, to lessen the tempation to game the system and conversely to reduce dramafodder for accusations of such gaming. It appears to me that this meta-editing issue is not directly covered anywhere (IAR?); of course if it is I am sure someone will point that out to me, but I suggest that this issue is beyond the current scope of this proceeding in any case.

If there are substantial changes to the COI guidelines made by THF which materially affect the status of his namespace edits, this should be deemed disruptive, to some degree in concordance with the level of change, although again I cannot point to a policy/guideline which explicitly says so. And note that I cannot see the claimed edits as evidence of such a change. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

THF made Sicko edits after saying to do so would be a case for COI

10) After THF said on August 23, "I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI", he made substantive edits to the main page , , ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --David Shankbone 12:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Of the 4 "substantive edits" given, the first and third are merely tagging, which doesn't seem to be substantive. The fourth is adding an external link. The second is substantive, but is claimed to be based on discussion on the talk page - the discussion is question involved suggesting the addition and waiting for objections. I would say, in that case, that THF should have waiting longer than he did before adding it to the article (about 10 hours). However, I do not believe that those 4 diffs actually support the proposed finding of fact. SamBC(talk) 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging an article as "POV" is very substantive, and calls the entire article in question to the reader - It's difficult to make a more substantive edit than to do that. THF would raise an issue on the Talk page and then make the change, before discussion took place. Had he not made the substantive change, he would have seen editors had problems with this, myself included. For someone with an admitted COI, you are right, he should have waited longer than 10 hours. The fourth edit is an external link that was removed for for a 9 minute home-made infomercial, Uninsured in America, that was not worthy to have its own article (THF created it). THF then said it was a "compromise" to insert the see also to Stuart Browning, where the original article had been moved. That wasn't a particularly good faith edit summary, nor a compromise, and someone with a stated COI should not have done it. The links I provide support the fact very well. --David Shankbone 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Those don't rise to my personal definition of substantiative edits. Georgewilliamherbert

This section I find problematic - I am not sure what the point here is. First, if it is to show THF merely changed his mind (assuming the edits were indeed substantive; one is but it's not at all disruptive or even controversial), well mission perhaps accomplished but it's a 500 pound straw man - changing one's mind, in and of itself, is fair game. If it is to show that due to COI, they were disruptive, I fail to see it. If it is to suggest that THF should have waited for more feedback, I would agree that that would have been preferable, but I see that as neither serious, nor expressed in the proposal.

So, I suggest David refactor this section's proposal and/or his response to Sam as I get the sense he wrote here faster than he thought: the complaints in his response were about consensus time (or relative lack thereof, as I said above), a (quite minor) content dispute, and edit summary issue, not COI as is in his proposal. As another example, I find it very easy to conceive of what David apparently has a hard time conceiving: making a more substantive edit than tagging as POV. Namely, replacing content of one POV with that of the opposite POV, something he has mentioned several times. This is not meant as a "gotcha", but rather a good faith suggestion that he really hasn't thought out and expressed his ideas in this section thoroughly. Note that even if he reasonably disagrees with my analyses here (e.g., that is was a quite minor content dispute), I still stand by my refactoring suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone was hoping to stay out of this arbitration for a while. If you think a revised version of this proposal would help the arbitrators, feel free to propose it yourself as an alternate. Cool Hand Luke 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure what to do then. I get a feeling that David perhaps wanted to use this contrast to support an accusation of Wikilawyering by THF. But without further diffs here it is hard to establish a pattern. And many of the analyses of other provided diffs by both parties in this proceeding I find to not be accurate representations of the most obvious good faith interpretations of those same diffs, so I hesitate to plod through a haystack of them to find perhaps only a needle of wikilawyering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There a couple of examples of THF declaring COI back in February, then making substantive edits anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And I don't doubt if there are several more, but my confusion remains as to what really is proposed here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do those diffs have to do with substantive edits? They're both on talk pages. SamBC(talk) 02:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the diffs I posted those are his declarations of conflict of interest. To see the edits he made subsequently see these history pages: ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack site policy

11) Misplaced Pages has no attack site policy except Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, a guideline. As currently stated there, the guideline somewhat exaggerates and misstates the ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. That was intended to apply only to serious cases of systemic harassment. It is not easy to understand or apply. Whether it applies to a particular site is a matter of informed judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Informational question / comment to Fred - Do you intend by this to start to expand this case to include the various editor / admin actions related to unlinking Moore's website? This seems appropriate to that question but not to the direct THF / DavidShankBone issues. Georgewilliamherbert 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages has no attack site policy except Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, a guideline." True. 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"As currently stated there, the guideline somewhat exaggerates and misstates the ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO." No idea, thats really for Arb Com to say and change policy as they see fit. 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is intended to apply only to serious cases of systemic harassment." It says nothing about degrees of harassment in the policy. Also publishing some-ones real name (a privacy violation noted explicitly in policy as such) more than twenty times in a 24 hour period on several pages counts as systemic to me. 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is not easy to understand or apply." I completely disagree with this statement as the policy is writen in clear basic english, details what is harassment so you know what it is and discribes clearly the action to be taken if it is found (ie exactly what i did in removing it constantly knowing 3rr did not apply to me). 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Whether it applies to a particular site is a matter of informed judgment." The policy clearly mandates the opposite of using your judgement in this case or that. It says Harassment MUST be removed, there is no grey area writen into the policy when it comes to privacy violations (ie as opposed to NPA and what does constitute an attack?). Ive seperated these comments so each can be discused individually. 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

THF was harassed by an external website

12) THF was targeted for attention by the Michael Moore's website, see screenshot. The page included links to edit his user page as well as links to edit Sicko.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Question: Does attention = harassment? --David Shankbone 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

When there are links to edit his user page on Misplaced Pages, yes. Fred Bauder 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the links had been to his talk page? Confusing the two is, after all, a plausible "newbie mistake". Shouldn't we AGF? Has anyone asked Moore what he intended those links to be used for? (He did apparently later take them down) --Random832 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note that the link was to edit his user page. The article on him did not yet exist. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not sure, I went off the screenshot. Fred Bauder 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Random832: I have a hard time AGF'ing about those types of links in that context. While Moore and/or his webmaster may not be well versed in Misplaced Pages policy, the page and links should clearly and unambiguously meet any reasonable definition of harrassment. That's only tangentally related to the THF/ShankBone issues, however, as they seem to have mostly argued about that aspect of it and not acted on it (others did act). Georgewilliamherbert 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with GWH here. While the Duck test applies to the links, I do not see this issue related to those at hand. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

THF complained about "attack site"

12.1) THF made a complaint about being harassed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents and asked about the "standard procedure for delinking attack sites". . The archived discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Attack_site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This was just a newbie mistake. He could not be expected to appreciate the level of depravity the policy applies to. Fred Bauder 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

THF had been on Misplaced Pages for a year, had made 7,000 edits to 2,500 articles (his own words), ceaselessly wikilinked to policies and guidelines, edited guidelines, and in his request to "de-link" an "attack site", referenced the SlimVirgin episode. That's a "newbie" mistake? --David Shankbone 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and he's not the only experienced editor who misunderstands this policy, MONGO, himself, is just one example. Michael Moore, whatever his defects, has a moral compass. He is also probably not a Misplaced Pages editor. This is quite different from a site devoted to destructive material harmful to Misplaced Pages. Fred Bauder 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that there was any misunderstanding. It's sheer coincidence that this misunderstanding was applied to the website of the target of THF's criticism; and THF just happens to edit every article related to this man; and THF just happens to be familiar with the SlimVirgin episode. It was clear to many editors that this was not an "attack site" but it wasn't clear to this editor, with his COI involving Michael Moore? Unlikely. Instead, I think this fit very nicely in a pattern of anti-Michael Moore editing on THF's part. That seems more likely, given his experience, his edits and his familiarity with SlimVirgin's issue. --David Shankbone 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this interpretation. --David Shankbone 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Any other interpretation assumes bad faith given that: THF clarified he wanted standard treatment applied in his case, and chastised a tone-deaf editor who continued waring on his supposed behalf. This war served no purpose to THF, and the implication that he knowingly instigated a massive edit war by ending a question in the words "attack page?" is a colossal assumption of bad faith, which the evidence cannot support. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - DavidShankbone is proposing that there is such evidence. (I haven't looked at this enough to know whether I agree, but it at least seems clear that's what he's saying). It's also not necessarily saying he meant to start an edit war - he could have thought that it'd go unchallenged even without believing that policy actually justifies delinking it. Given the name-recognition and loudness (and, thus, apparent power) of those who support the "shoot first, ask questions never" treatment of sites branded 'attack sites'; if you asked me a couple weeks ago if (given a circumstance like this one) someone could get away with having a site permanently delinked, I'd probably have thought, yes they could. --Random832 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About the content of this proposal: this is blatantly obvious that this is indeed what happened. One may only question whether THF's interpretation of the site, the terminology he used to describe it, was correct (his opinion was neither unanimously shared nor opposed). But that is another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baccyak4H (talk • contribs)

Yeah, looks like we got sidetracked --Random832 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the factual statement, but I disagree with how it is interpreted by its proposer. --David Shankbone 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Fred's pretty much centrist in terms of how WP policy-oriented-people interpret the situation here. Georgewilliamherbert 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, the intent of the MM.com was clearly harassment, by virtue of the fact that they put a link to edit his user page at the top of the front page. Now whether that translated into BADSITES was unclear to me (it's clearer now that it did not), but my initial reaction was that it was intimidation and harassment of a Misplaced Pages user, and therefore the application BADSITES was at least debatable in this case. And honestly, if it were my picture and personal info plastered in such a negative light on a very public page like MM.com, I don't think I would have reacted nearly as reasonably as THF did. ATren 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the question was debatable, and the course of action chosen, contacting Michael Moore about the links, was appropriate and effective. Fred Bauder 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THF is not an expert in healthcare policy or film

13) THF is an expert in tort and legal liability. This expertise does not extend to healthcare policy or film, nor is he cited by anyone as having expertise in these areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A person is hired by a political advocacy group like the AEI because they have an expertise in a certain field, such as THF does with tort and liability issues; not because they have an expertise in all things political. This is why the AEI has Joseph Antos, their expert in "Medicare; Health care policy; Private health insurance", and other experts in the fields of culture and media. A similar situation would be a person who is hired by a law firm because they have expertise in a certain field of law, such as corporate; not because they have an expertise in all thing legal. Corporate lawyers will be the first to tell you they know little about immigration law; Constitutional lawyers will be the first to tell you they know little about securities regulation. THF's expertise is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which focuses on his politics, not his expertise. --David Shankbone 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unless THF can make some legitimate claim to expertise that the rest of us are unaware of, DavidShankbone makes an excellent point that THF's expertise is confined to tort and liability issues--expertise that doesn't appear to bear in this case. Ossified 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would concur that i) the burden of proof is on THF for any claimed expertise; ii) if any demonstrated, it should be welcomed per another section, but given no special priviledges. However, I point out that, for better or for worse, the empirical reality in the USA right now is that the areas of healthcare policy and legal liability are not mutually exclusive. This is not to attest to THF's expertise in healthcare policy, but only to say that to summarily dismiss any possibility of such is not warranted. But in the end, only he can make and support that assertion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal liability, say whether Merck is responsible for the problems caused by Vioxx (THF worked on this case, but as he stated, mostly based on procedural issues), is far different than the question of "Should we have a national healthcare system?" They are worlds apart. One has to do with torts, the other with political philosophy. --David Shankbone 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but has he ever claimed such expertise? -Amarkov moo! 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes true, they are not synonymous, but my point was that they are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive. If David is implying they are exclusive, I would strongly disagree. As an analogy, if one of the main bugaboos in healthcare was inefficient staff scheduling in hospitals, an operations researcher might have a lot of expertise in that aspect of healthcare policy, despite being worlds apart from, say, an M.D. or a legislator. But as per Amarkov, it is not relevant unless THF claims such expertise where the fields overlap as such. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the basis of his explanation for why his is not clearly in violation of the conflict-of-interest policy. Raul654 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is so, it's an incorrect explanation as I see it. COI has to do with financial/material incentive, nothing to do with expertise per se. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to square 'expert status' and anonymity. T__ F____ (insert real name of THF) may be an expert, but THF desires anonymity. If THF is T__ F____, then other editors are expected to perform a very Buddhist sleight-of-mind by simultaneously knowing and not knowing that THF is T__ F____. On what basis can THF be ascribed 'expert status' without explicitly acknowledging that THF is T__ F____? It seems as though THF is punching someone and then asking, "You wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you?" He expects the deference accorded the opinions of an expert while seeking the protections provided to a non-public or non-notable person. In this case, the anonymity horse is out of the barn, and it's only on that basis that THF could be considered an expert on anything. Ossified 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal and the resulting discussion is a complete derail. The "controversial experts" language from previous arbitrations is not a claim that the controversial expert gets special treatment. The principle Fred cites does exactly the opposite: it simply states that the fact an editor may have a strong POV that is well-publicized outside of Misplaced Pages does not prohibit such a person from editing, and that such an editor should be treated like any other editor, and judged on the merits of his or her edits, and that other editors should not repeatedly attack that editor and their edits simply because of off-wiki notability. It is irrelevant why the expert is controversial. So I oppose: where my expertise lies has no relevance to anything. This isn't Citizendium. An 11-year-old computer hobbyist can edit Sicko; so can a legal policy expert. THF 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This !oppose seems to be in opposition to the relevance of any expertise THF has (or not) to editing, not to the proposal itself. You may wish to clarify. Then again, reading in to your response again, you may not.  ;\ Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If THF is not claiming any expertise in any field that is relevant to this RfA, then let's strike any proposed findings of fact related to expertise as irrelevant. Otherwise, David may claim expertise in photography (or anything else) and both experts claims of expertise will have to be weighed equally (lightly, I would hope). Ossified 14:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment Sicko

14) THF filed several requests for comment regarding Sicko Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#NPOV_tag_.2F_unbalanced_tag Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#Another_problematic_edit Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#Continued_WP:LEAD_violations

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Identity

15) THF was, until the middle of the controversy this arbitration is about, known by his real name. He also, after making the name change, reinserted {{notable Wikipedian}} on an article talk page, stating "I have nothing to hide."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think that this is central to the WP:HARASS charges. --Random832 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thin "middle" should perhaps be qualified - my impression is that, in terms of time and content of the dispute, it was nearer the beginning that to "now". SamBC(talk) 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I took David Shankbone at his word that it was approximately "two thirds of the way through the Sicko argument", but didn't want to overspecify. My impression, though, was certainly the opposite of yours, 2/3 > 1/2. His "nothing to hide" was certainly after the name change, and seems highly likely (but i don't have it in front of me) to have been after he accused people of harassment for calling him by his real name. --Random832 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was after he accused people of harassment for calling him by his real name, after many people including admins edit warred to keep on wikipedia. So then THF gave up the idea of his privacy being protected. 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is central to WP:HARASS. Further, I would hope that there would be a strong bias towards protecting editors' privacy. Strong, however, is not absolute. Additionally, there is the question of how much privacy can any editor expect if they are responsible for their own 'outing'. Asking other editors to ignore what they know to be true as a direct result of actions by the presumably protected party seems to place an unwarranted burden on them, particularly when one of the other issues at hand involves claims of POV-pushing. If an editor could bounce in and out of anonymity, the resulting talk page could appear to show consensus between multiple editors when, in fact, the multiple editors are a single person who could claim to have adopted each new identity after begin 'outed' under the previous one. Serial sockpuppetry might be the unanticipated consequence of failure to adequately address the 'right to privacy' issue here. Ossified 11:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies on using a sockpuppet abusively should apply in the strange and very rare case you propose Ossified. Some-one with Checkuser status could easilly determin this was going on and then warn/block/ban that user as the admin thinks. 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some background on this: the debate over the external links (on AN/I and elsewhere) spilled over into a debate over whether THF's actual name should be used when referring to THF the editor. Some editors thought it "silly" that THF should not want his name to be used after he had already revealed it, and seemed to be mentioning it spuriously - some might even say defiantly. THF (and others, including I) objected to this behavior per this line in WP:HARASS: "It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives." Hypnosadist was the most vocal on this issue, I was probably second, and THF was a distant third. Soon after, the edit war spread to the "notable Wikipedians" link on THF's article page, with several editors adding and removing that tag. The next day, THF conceded the issue to stop the edit warring (here - "I have not edit-warred on this, but I'm asking for the end of hostilities and edit-warring on a remarkably silly issue") and it was only after this that he re-added the notable Wikipedian link. ATren 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, THF began demanding that editors stop using his name back in February, yet made no effort to change it until August. He also called the request of another user for privacy "frivolous". It appears to me that some of these requests/demands have been more about gaining the upper hand in disputes rather than a serious concern about keeping his identity private. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"He also called the request of another user for privacy "frivolous"" Yes he did and he was wrong and threatend with a block if he repeated the privacy violation once more(a total of two privacy violations would have resulted in a block). Six months later THF finds the boots on the other foot and he has the right to be treated just like Jance. Yet his privacy is violated time after time after time and those doing it are not even warned they will get a block for violating policy. It is this HYPOCRACY that angers me most (and i believe THF too) in this whole situation. 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it hypocritical to demand that users stop using his name even while he signed it himself? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He signed as THF (a piped signature) since March. When this issue came up early last month, users claimed they were free to use his full name because it was his username, so THF petitioned to change his username at that time. He did not sign under his full name again until voting on the deletion debate for his article, and he also put up the notable Wikipedian tag in order to end the dispute. I interpret use of his name in these cases as grace rather than hypocrisy. Or are you talking about the first 300 or so edits he made to Misplaced Pages? Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also like to point out, THF stopped signing his name right after a vicious series of off-wiki attacks: another editor signed THF up for porn sites, dating services, and even applied for a mortgage, all under THF's identity. This, I believe, was the point where THF decided that he'd rather not go by his real name, at least not everywhere. It was later exacerbated by what can best be described as a juvenile schoolyard taunt by Wikidea - again attacking THF in a very personal way. And, of course, there was the MM.com thing - three separate cases of personal harassment in 6 months - and that doesn't even include the repeated, spurious, pointy mentions of his name on AN/I.

Later, in this Village Pump post, THF conveyed his rationale regarding his efforts to stop using his name: "Over the last six months, I have been subjected to an extraordinary amount of harassment because I sought to comply with WP:COI and disclosed my identity. In an effort to reduce the harassment, I made a username change, which I thought was a good compromise: long-time editors generally inclined to behave themselves knew who I was, trolls wouldn't be able to immediately pick me out." Does this seem so terribly unreasonable? ATren 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem there is that you can't resolve a conflict of interest just by saying who you are, you then have to allow others to guide you on how you should proceed. THF was and is unwilling to accept any opinion other than that he had no material conflict of interest, but he could never be the final arbiter of that. That is why we are here, because I think this is the only final arbiter he'd accept. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But he did allow others to guide him. He explicitly sought out guidance on the "ranking of documentaries" issue (filed the RFC), and when consensus went against him, he dropped it (closed it himself). But this one issue, in which consensus went against him, should not disqualify him from further discussion on other issues, which is what is seemingly being argued in this case. He has also opened other RFCs, and even self-reported to COI/N. There is plenty of evidence he was willing to accept the guidance of others. ATren 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone appeared to "keep an eye on" THF

16) DavidShankbone has called attention to activity by THF that he considers questionable in a number of different articles on a number of different subjects, and has pursued these accusations in a manner that could be called "dogmatic".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. SamBC(talk) 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've worded this horribly and provided no diffs; I invite others to fix both of these failures. In terms of diffs, I'm just not sure which of the multitude applicable would be best, and due to caring for my recently-disabled fiancée don't really have the time to figure it out. Apart from the tone of the proposal, I doubt that David would disagree entirely - the dogamtism, if you'll excuse the word, is apparent from contributions to this RfAr. I'd rather not have put this in in such an incomplete way, but I think it really needs covering and I don't think it's been brought up yet. SamBC(talk) 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an issue. Fred Bauder 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a problem, though. If he truly thinks that THF participated in questionable activity, pursuing that isn't inherently bad, unless it's done disruptively. -Amarkov moo! 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I deliberately attempted to phrase this in a way that wasn't judgemental. I didn't do well, and I particularly dislike my usage of "dogmatic". Judgement on it is down to the arbitrators in their decisions - this is just meant to be statement of fact. SamBC(talk) 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone widely reviewed THF's editing

16.1) DavidShankbone has admitted to widely reviewing most or all of THF's edits during the time in question, and calling attention to activity by THF that he considers questionable in a number of different articles on a number of different subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative - and see below. More narrowly focused in scope and pursuant to DavidShankbone's own admissions and statements. Georgewilliamherbert 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this says what I was trying to say much better. SamBC(talk) 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the alternatives below, which I see as supplementary to this very direct statement of fact, I think they can be seen as buiding on one another - that is, each one does not contradict the previous ones, but strengthens/refines them and thus assumes them to be true. I have no problem agreeing with the first two; my guts says "yes" to the third, but I advocate caution and more use of evidence before concluding it to be true. SamBC(talk) 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The three options below are intended to be built on this one, sorry if that wasn't clear. It would be the "widely reviewed" plus one of those three as a combination. I assume discussion will focus in on a consensus (among discussers) of which of the three is most accurate, though arbitrators' opinions will be the deciding factor of course. Georgewilliamherbert 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

16.2) DavidShankbone's responses to THF's edits during the time in question were enthusiastic by normal Misplaced Pages standards of discussion and consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed responses-focused conclusion. See alternatives. Georgewilliamherbert 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, enthusiastic, and perhaps overly so, but I think the problem was that he was not getting what he wanted, which was some kind of resolution of the question - all we got after each round of debate was the same thing: some people saying COI, some people saying not, and no consensus. It's fair to press for a resolution, though David was overzealous in re-presenting his case (it would have been better to start an RfC, I think, and keep all the debate in one place). Guy (Help!) 12:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with this assessment of both where I was wrong and what lay at the heart of my frustration that led to behavior that was...not optimal. --David Shankbone 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with JzG's and Shankbone's attempt to retroactively characterize this. There was a consensus and JzG and Shankbone and Rafael1 refused to accept the consensus. Normally, repeatedly reraising an issue that has been resolved by consensus is considered disruptive rather than evidence of a lack of consenus. THF 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First, you are not the arbiter of consensus, second, every one of the diffs you cited from WP:COIN was by the same editor, and I would scarcely say that "I have read the additional comments and am still not persuaded there is a true COI issue here" is much of an endorsement of your position, so that, coupled with the fact that several of us disagreed indicates to me that there was not a consensus. If there was a consensus then there would have been no ongoing debate and I would not have brought this case here. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Every diff points to one editor, Newyorkbrad, who never makes any assertions as to consensus. In response to Newyorkbrad, I made a statement there was no consensus, so in good faith I agreed to have the COI closed for lack of consensus, instead of drawing it out. Yet it was only last month that THF said that "...consensus...is not a majority vote.... it requires unanimity." Yet on this COI issue, where there was no consensus, THF said there was. The difference: the unanimity was required to remove the POV tag from Sicko for there to be consensus, but in regards to his own COI, a simple majority means consensus. He is wrong with both contradictory interpretations. --David Shankbone 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There was unanimity among admins. All five who participated in that thread said there was no COI violation. The people who objected (including JzG now, after the fact, when he did not participate in the COIN) did so without reference to what the guideline actually said. To this day, Shankbone has not identified the argument by which my edits violated the COI guideline. THF 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What does "unanimity among admins" mean to you? They hold no special status, they hold special tools. I will quote from User:Cool Hand Luke's User page for you: "On the other hand, it seems that we've moved toward a kind of caste system with adminship. The ratio of users to admins has exploded, and admins seem to engender excessive respect and fear when entering content disputes. I think my fellow editors should know that adminship was actually not a big deal when I was handed the mop." An editor is an editor, and all votes are equal. You can go to the COI discussion to see the case that many editors brought forth over your COI, and the case made here. I am not going to regurgitate the argument in every thread. --David Shankbone 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

16.3) DavidShankbone's responses to THF's edits during the time in question were in excess of normal Misplaced Pages standards of discussion and consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed responses-focused conclusion. See alternatives. Georgewilliamherbert 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

16.4) DavidShankbone's responses to THF's edits during the time in question were Wikistalking and/or harrassment by normal Misplaced Pages standards of discussion and consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed responses-focused conclusion. See alternatives. Georgewilliamherbert 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist

17) User:Hypnosadist took (and continues through this arbitration to take) an extreme position, one which THF does not appear to have agreed with, which tended to produce more heat than light in an already inflamed environment. --Random832 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: I think it's inevitable that he'll eventually be added as a party, I wanted to get this out there as an attempt to have a reasonably-worded assessment of his involvement. --Random832 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:HARASS random! If you want a policy changed go to its page and talk page and change it. Why is it an "extreme position" to want wikipedia policy enforced as writen and equally between all editors. Why does SlimVirgin or Jance get one sort of treatment and THF another? 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As for "one which THF does not appear to have agreed with" that will be because i'm not his meatpuppet. 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he took an extreme position, yes, THF does not appear to have fully supported it, and yes, it would have been more constructive had he held a more moderate opinion. But we really, REALLY, can not start sanctioning people because they hold an unpopular opinion. -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist was angered (as I was) at the refusal of several editors to respect THF's stated wishes - and at least one admin even seemed to be using his name spuriously. Several editors voiced their objections to this (see ). Hypnosadist did take it too far, IMO, and both THF and I asked him to cease, which he eventually did - but this was after THF had already conceded the use of his identity. At worst, Hypnosadist is guilty of overexuberance, in enforcing what many of us believed to be a clear violation of policy. ATren 03:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Less than a week after a nick is changed is not enough time to expect nobody to make any mistakes - this alone violates WP:AGF. He also (it's been stated, I don't have the evidence in front of me) changed references to the name that referred to the article, not the user, to the new nickname - strictly speaking, this action can itself be interpreted as "outing". --Random832 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Less than a week after a nick is changed is not enough time to expect nobody to make any mistakes" True and a fair interpetation of AGF. As opposed to what actually happened which was several editors added Privacy violations MANY times, and re-added them after being warned by me and others that they violated WP:HARASS, and finally edit warred to keep those privacy violations on wikipedia. No way AGF can stretch to makeing the same mistake 20+ times including coming up with new ways to try and out THF such as posting articles he wrote under his real name. 04:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there was an ongoing COI dispute involving THF _himself_ attempting to promote material he wrote under his real name, I don't see how discussing such material could have been avoided. (the solution IMO is to abandon WP:COI and judge each edit on its merits rather than who posted it, but at present time WP:COI has equal status with WP:HARASS. And, even in a policy, "must" does not mean an absolute rule not subject to judgement calls.) --Random832 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that one of the core issues here is; when the natural course of discussion puts the names "Ted Frank" and "THF" on the same talk page with a series of dots to be easily connected between them, how much obligation do people have to bend over backwards to prevent that from occuring? --Random832 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

""must" does not mean an absolute rule not subject to judgement calls" If your statement is true then policies need to be worded so they say what they mean. Must means just that "Must", and any reasonable person reading the policy will think that as opposed to "Must be applied except when it isn't". 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wiki. Like it or not, not everything here is written in the same style, so we CANNOT say that because one policy (again; WP:HARASS? not even a policy.) is more strongly worded that means it is actually more important or more inflexible. Judgement and common sense have to be used in applying ALL policies. --Random832 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a MoS issue, Must has a very specific meaning in english! If it does not mean must then Arb Com need to change the wording to refect thier opinion of what Harassment is. No-one who argued for the inclusion of the privacy violations under IAR. There was no need to publish and re-publish THF's real name, it was not part of any substantive dispute resolution. 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"when the natural course of discussion puts the names "Ted Frank" and "THF" on the same talk page with a series of dots to be easily connected between them, how much obligation do people have to bend over backwards to prevent that from occuring?" Simple as much as SlimVirgin got which was a hell of a lot all the way up to Oversighting the privacy violations against her. Wikipedians deserve equality in treatment and protection that the 37th highest editor gets. 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the "SlimVirgin incident". I have no idea what happened. From the fragments that I can gather from people talking about it in the present, I get the impression that it was very badly handled, that there was POV-pushing on her part that led people to (whether they were right to do so or not) wonder "who is it that's trying to influence wikipedia like this", and that the evidence of her misconduct got oversighted right along with the privacy violations. --Random832 13:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive point of view statements by THF

18) THF, at times, seems to take the position that positions to the left of his are "left-wing", characterizing mainstream viewpoints as "left-wing" . This sometimes takes the form of repeating right-wing propaganda as though it was fact (comment about "Venezuelan dictators"). At times he seems to live in a world of his own . Cast as bread upon the waters, such comments amount to trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a trap for a right-wing editor, as the United States government sometimes engages in this behavior. However, statements that are not fact-based are inappropriate in the context of editing an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Fred misinterprets my edit summary. As ATren correctly notes below, I objected to the description of FAIR as a neutral watchdog. My edit summary merely noted that there are many POVs regarding the status of FAIR, and that choosing the one that painted FAIR in the kindest light violated NPOV, just as choosing the one that painted FAIR in the worst light would. (The edits immediately preceding mine deleted the characterization "progressive" on "NPOV" grounds.) I was merely stating that NPOV requires FAIR to be described on an equivalent basis with its counterpart, MRC. I further note that several Sicko talk-page participants characterized mainstream viewpoints as right-wing. I further object to the double-standard: editors such as Cberlet and WMC are not subjected to ideological scrutiny when they were accused of COI, and their mainspace page-edits are far more aggressive in promoting their point of view than mine are. THF 14:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I further note that, notwithstanding my characterization of Reuters as left-wing (which, as I have previously noted on my evidence page, is a mainstream position in the US), I did so in a talk-page edit as an argument for why my inclusion of Reuters language criticizing Moore was not a POV violation. I was citing Reuters in an effort to compromise because of the objections to citations to other mainstream critics of Moore. THF 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly object to a legitimate edit being characterized as "trolling." The edits needs to be read in the context of talk-page discussion where it was claimed that only movie critics' opinions were relevant to an article about a political movie. The evidence of "mostly positive reviews" came from IMDB, which polls movie fans; my edit added context that had been removed. But the fact of the matter is that the movie was criticized across the political spectrum by economists and public-policy analysts (as demonstrated by over two dozen cites I provided on the talk page), and that criticism had been entirely white-washed from the article. Every statement I made about Sicko and the Sicko article was a good-faith fact-based statement. THF 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested, you seem to live in a distinct and separate conceptual universe (That Dubya and his vice-president share this universe does not help). It may be that you do not realize the effort of your comments, but they serve only to stir people up. Hugo Chavez may be a thug, in the sense used by Micah Halpern, but he is an elected thug, not a dictator. I notice it is often in comments that you do this, perhaps not "letting it rip" when you make comments might help. Fred Bauder 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred: I submit to you that your 22:00 remark is far more provocative than anything you have criticized me for saying in an edit summary. I understand that you may find some points of view you perceive me as having as offensive; there are a number of points of view that I find offensive, but I don't attack Wikipedians for holding such points of view. Can you please explain to me under what circumstances I am not supposed to find "you seem to live in a distinct and separate conceptual universe (That Dubya and his vice-president share this universe does not help)" to be an offensive personal attack? THF 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the 2200 comment fred i think you should think about recusing yourself. 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I object to this! He has his politics and every one else has thiers. Editors are not NPOV! Misplaced Pages is NPOV by combining editors of all POV's. 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A left-wing editor who parrots communist propaganda (9/11 was a plot by the US government, the USSR was a workers' paradise, or similar nonsense) will encounter similar difficulties. Fred Bauder 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying i object to politcs coming into this as that in my oppinion why THF was harassed out of here. And to have it brought up "against" THF is just compounding and legitamising that harassment. Lots of editors provide unencyclopedic edit summeries are you going to go after them? 12:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary I interpreted it to mean that the point of view exists, not that THF necessarily held it. In other words, there are a lot of different points of view on what FAIR is, ranging from "heroic progressive media watchdog" to "fact-twisting left-wing propaganda group" (note, neither of these views is mine - I have no opinion on the matter). THF's point seemed to be that we could just as easily use the far-right description as the far-left description, so it was better to have neither. ATren 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In principle, however, I do agree that THF seems to overuse the term "left wing", which may have a place in political commentary, but only seems to inflame debates on-wiki. I don't necessarily think it's actionable (calling a claim "left wing" on a talk page doesn't seem to violate any policy) but it is probably something he could have avoided saying during a heated debate. ATren 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I concur with the first phrase ("seems to take the position") but warn that it comes close to a perceptual tautology: anyone perceives views to the (pick side) of their own as, well, from that side. The only operative result that I can imagine would be to point out that one's opinion should be stated as such and not as fact. I am concerned though with the implications of a strong endorsement: it would suddenly become much more difficult to rightfully identify something as "fringe", due to wikilawyering, or perhaps even minority POV. Impilcations aside, the Reuters comment does support the proposal.

2) The propaganda example could be instead read as a snarky analogy attempting to make the point that the characterization he removed was not itself NPOV. I prefer this interpretation of that edit summary (as does ATren, apparently), but reasonable people may disagree.

3) I also concur that THF's discussions can be laden with inflammatory POV language. I wish to point out that I see that being issues of civility and NPOV and not of COI, thus only with standard dictates to follow those policies as a potential result. In particular I am concerned with the outcome of this proceeding yielding more accusations of COI used as a tool in POV-based content disputes, something that, at least to some extent, is happening here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Update per additional sentences ("At times...") added to proposal: That edit was unquestionably dubious, but the characterization is not only overly strong and personal but quite vague; much better might be to describe what was objectionable about it ("aggressive"? "POV"? both?), but something in relation to WP policy/guidelines rather than "in a world of his own". And "trolling" seems unwarranted: let me ask if good faith precludes the interpretation of that edit summary to be something like "um, it's a movie, not a piece of scholarship"? Reasonable people may think so, but I for one do not. If not, there is no way that can be considered trolling. The edit itself is less problematic than the summary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

During his dispute in February he made statements like: "... is affiliated with a left-wing think-tank funded by indicted plaintiffs' law firm..." and "...her inflammatory anti-reform website run by a plaintiffs' bar-funded left-wing think tank..." Together with other evidence this makes it appear that he has a tendency to see things as having a right/left divide (and possibly also plaintiff/defendant divide). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by that statement, which is 100% accurate, and welcome you to look at the inflammatory website in question. The Drum Major Institute gave Barack Obama a "C" (on an A-through-F scale) for being insufficiently left-wing. I note further the double-standard: User:Cberlet has many similar edit summaries, and has not been subjected to such harassing scrutiny.

If you don't think Cberlet has been subject to harassing scrutiny you need to review the history more fully. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also this, posted just yesterday on the RfA talk page: "...other editors affiliated with left-wing organizations..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is rather strongly worded. The characterisation as "trolling" suggests that the intent was to kick up a fuss. I believe that THF needs to understand that his comments may be seen as imflammatory, but I don't think he actually does at this point. Please, THF, take this as a message meant for your benefit - a lot of the time you do seem to repeat conservative propaganda as if it is objective truth. This doesn't damage articles, generally, as you generally do it in talk pages and edit summaries. However, it does cause more friction than there needs to be on talk pages. I do not believe that this has ever been THF's intent. SamBC(talk) 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, conscious, unconscious, intentional, unintentional, it comes to the same thing. Fred Bauder 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, both WP:TROLL and Troll (Internet) agree that trolling is only trolling if there is intent, and we shouldn't use the term to describe something else. There is sure another, suitably negative, term that can be used, such as "disruptive". SamBC(talk) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about pointing out the existence of a particular point of view. At no point did I say "Chavez is a dictator." I said "There exists a POV that Chavez is a dictator." If simply acknowledging the existence of that point of view is "disruptive", then you demonstrate precisely my point that there is a systemic bias against right-wing points of view on Misplaced Pages. For crying out loud, Hillary Clinton called Chavez a dictator. THF 23:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THF, I'm sorry that you can't see how your behaviour has been disruptive - but I believe that that indicates again that your disruption isn't intentional. I wasn't referring specifically to the Chavez quote - I see nothing in your behaviour even vaguely objectionable in that case. The disruption comes, as CHL indicated below, from the appearance of angling for, or the uninteitonal result of, a political debate. I doubt you honestly intended to create political debate in talk pages, for what it's worth. This is why I object to any term that implies intent, such as "trolling". SamBC(talk) 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, clever, but, hot news, a vote whore is not a reliable source. Here's what you said, '"media watchdog organization" POV also. Another POV is that they're an advocacy group for left-wing causes and Venezuelan dictators." Fred Bauder 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Fred, please explain to me why calling Hillary Clinton a "vote whore" is less "provocative" and "disruptive" than the edit summary you are criticizing.

I stand by my statement that calling FAIR a "media watchdog organization" without noting that they have a particular agenda, while at the same time, failing to give a similarly neutral laudatory description of MRC, does violate NPOV. THF 00:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the notion that "Chavez is a dictator" is a significant enough point of view that it appears in Misplaced Pages, with cites to Foreign Policy magazine and the US State Department. To say that pointing out that point of view exists is too provocative to be mentioned in a Misplaced Pages edit summary is a really stunning assertion. THF 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. As I understand the proposition, this is a variation of WP:NOT#CHAT, and that these throw-away remarks amount to trolling for a political debate. Is this correct, Fred? Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it Fred Bauder 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. This finding makes sense to me; users shouldn't ignite unrelated political debates, but I share ATren's concern that the language in this proposal is too strong. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With CHL's clarification, this does kind of make sense, but it needs massive rewording to be in any sense fair. The intent of the proposal is correct, as I now understand it (thanks CHL), and I doubt even those of us who mostly fall on THF's "side" would claim he was blameless. SamBC(talk) 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with where this seems to be heading. To suggest that THF might need to avoid overusing the "left wing" label in disputes seems pretty reasonable (though I would extend that to all editors, not just THF); on the other hand, to suggest that making non-attacking edit comments such as the Chavez quote is trolling goes way overboard, IMO. Mild exaggeration in an edit comment is not disruption. And further, I still think we're completely misunderstanding the Chavez quote (see my earlier comment). ATren 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this statement from ATren. THF's negative reactions to Fred are entirely understandable, as this does come across (presumably unintentionally) as something of an attack, which I would hope not to see in an arbitration, and certainly not from an arbitrator. SamBC(talk) 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, let's put this into context: an editor objected to calling FAIR "progressive" because it was "POV." I pointed out that calling FAIR neutral violated POV, and that calling FAIR neutral was a left-wing POV just as inappropriate as characterizing FAIR in the worst light possible--there are multiple POVs regarding FAIR, and Misplaced Pages should not choose amongst them. The text in the edit summary was an example of text inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, rather than an effort to engage in debate. If there's disruption, it comes from a Moore partisan pushing the use of a partisan source as an example of neutral support for Moore.

Throughout the Sicko debate, people tried to debate Sicko and health policy with me, and I steadfastly refused, noting simply that criticism existed, came from a reliable source, and was notable. In response, David ShankBone and other Moore partisans posted lengthy attacks on the criticism, arguing regularly that the criticism was "wrong", and therefore shouldn't be noted. I had to repeatedly remind participants that the question wasn't one of whether Moore was wrong or right, but whether the article should be improved. If the issue is one of WP:NOT#CHAT, how is it that I'm the one being singled out, when I was the one constantly reminding Moore partisans not to violate NOT#CHAT and refusing to engage in it? (In fact, I was the one who created the NOT#CHAT bookmark that CHL accuses me of violating.) Noone challenged the edit summary until this arb, and my edit proposal on the larger question whether the FAIR material belonged at all gained consensus.

I object to a claim that I was "disruptive" (much less "trolling") without a single defensible diff supporting that claim being shown. Claiming that advocating for NPOV on a one-sided page is "disruptive" because of all the people who attacked me and complained about NPOV and tried to start extraneous political debates creates a heckler's veto. THF 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional edit summary by THF. "FAIR is pro-Venezuelan-dictatorship, for crying out loud" smb 13:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They may be, but what is the point of making such a comment? I doubt a reliable source could be found for such an assertion. Fred Bauder 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we really going to hold these against him even though that claim never came close to being added to an actual article? This seems like an incredible amount of persecution for an edit comment! If, for example, an article referred to Hillary Clinton as a liberal, and a European contributor removed the word "liberal" with a clearly exaggerated edit comment "some people in the world consider her a neocon" - would such a statement be controversial enough for an arbcom ruling? This is being WAY overblown, expecially given that the comments were being made in the context of a very heated content dispute.

The direction this debate is going leads me to believe that THF may be correct in his assertion of left-leaning bias... ATren 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I produced the edit summary 1. to bolster my original point (see evidence) and 2. to contest both your and THF's rationalization of the subject matter under consideration. smb 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excessively engaging statements by THF

18b) THF, at times, has expressed views in edit summaries and talk pages loosely related to the topic at hand that might have invited unrelated political debate in violation of WP:NOT#CHAT. (Characterizing mainstream viewpoints as "left-wing,", comments about "Venezuelan dictators," and film reviews from economists.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Others:

Proposed. Since this is basically a censure for being irrelevantly political in discussions, "world of his own" "trolling" and similar language is quite excessive. These kinds of comments are much less provoking than personal attacks, for example, and shouldn't be labeled "disruption." However, I understand why Misplaced Pages policy might frown on them. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this as a compromise (sort of). SamBC(talk) 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact-based bias

19) Misplaced Pages is biased, by virtue of its nature and policies, toward fact-based information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Only a small amount of wishful thinking in there, Fred :-) Guy (Help!) 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this ment to prove/achive fred? If its asking about the bias of wikipedia it is obviously recentist and biased to web based sources as opposed to text books IMO, does that help? 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

THF's use of an inappropriate comparable

19.1) THF, for purposes of argument, repeatedly compared Sicko with The Great Global Warming Swindle, a polemic which attacks scientific opinion . See comment by Viriditas and comment by Smb.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't see why this is "inappropriate." The comparison was how the articles were handled. I also compared it to Passion of the Christ. The point was that movies that received substantial criticism for alleged inaccuracies had those criticisms discussed in the article, while Moore partisans refused to permit criticisms of Sicko's inaccuracies discussed in the article. (I happen to think all three movies are inaccurate.) THF 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Apples, oranges, and coconuts. Fred Bauder 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review the extensive comment by Smb with explains why use of The Great Global Warming Swindle is inappropriate forcefully and in considerable detail. Fred Bauder 13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Passion of Christ is even worse. That movie was fabricated from whole cloth (age and tradition does not somehow cure that). How do you compare such an abomination with Moore's techniques of anecdote and selective coverage? Fred Bauder 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, you continue to take this out of context. I was responding to editors who kept saying that my cites to notable points of view criticizing the movie weren't to film critics, and thus weren't relevant, and I was pointing to Misplaced Pages articles about films where non-film-critics were cited criticizing the film's accuracy. Abraham Foxman is cited criticizing Passion of the Christ; critics of similar notability should be cited on Sicko. You may disagree with the argument, but that doesn't make the argument inappropriate--especially when the argument in prevailed in an RFC, and outside editors agreed that the article violated NPOV by omitting notable criticism. I am disturbed by the implication, repeated in two findings of fact, that simply stating a mainstream right-wing point of view is considered out of bounds in Misplaced Pages: NPOV says that all notable points of view are to be included. THF 21:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Which "mainstream right-wing points of view" are we talking about? Fred Bauder 22:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To take an easy one, how about the view that Chavez is a dictator , a position taken by notable rabid right-wingers like John Kerry? Merely stating in an edit summary that this point of view exists is objectionable according to you. THF 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're good... however, from the article, "Venezuela’s democratically–elected President Chavez". Fred Bauder 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you wish to go into the future and observe Chavez's foolish and disastrous behavior, you are free to join me, but not on Misplaced Pages, at least not yet. Fred Bauder 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The notion that "Chavez is a dictator" is a significant enough point of view that it appears in Misplaced Pages, with cites to Foreign Policy magazine and the US State Department. To say that pointing out that point of view exists is too provocative to be mentioned in a Misplaced Pages edit summary is a really stunning assertion. THF 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't agree with "inappropriate" - I've seen neither Sicko nor TGGWS, but on the surface they both seem to be movies that explicitly promote a political agenda. To call the comparison "inappropriate" seems... well... inappropriate. :-) ATren 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sicko, if I understand it, is based on anecdotes about the horrors of Health care in the United States and selective coverage of socialistic health systems. A comparable would be Sickup, a "documentary" based on anecdotes about the horrors of Publicly-funded health care combined with selective coverage of private medical care. Fred Bauder 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the view that there is something fundamentally screwed with the US healthcare model - wich is, after all, the most expensive per capita in the world - is fairly mainstream; here in the UK we have a reasonable trickle of analysis programmes making many of the same points Moore makes in Sicko, albeit in somewhat less vivid and polemical terms; the oil company shills who pursue climate change denial are a very different breed from liberals who merely question the US healthcare system. Sicko is a bit like Supersize Me or High And Mighty - it's a polemical version of a substantial minority view, a part of a legitimate political debate. TGGWS varies between novel interpretation and outright fraud in its representation of the evidence; also, there is a strong scientific consensus tha anthropogenic global warming is a reality, whereas there is no evident strong consensus that the US healthcare model is a Good Thing, especially if you take into account international opinion. The National Health Service is the subject of endless whining, but it costs, IIRC, about one third what the US system does, per capita. It is legitimate to question this. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with the proposal, and also see "inappropriate" to be overkill. Without doubt the closer the two parts of an analogy are to each other, the stronger and more persuasive the reasoning advanced. To call this appropriate or not seems to be making a value judgment on the conduct, not on the reasoning (or lack thereof) itself. Relative to "Sickup" (this is made up just for this discussion, right?), I would call the comparison "weaker", "less useful" or even "imprudent". But inappropriate should be reserved to an analogy so far removed that its use would be considered tendatious or even trolling. Here is a case where I will propose to the proposer (Fred) to amend the section title. But in the end, I accept as true the proposal language itself. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the comparison was of the articles and their treatment, not of the films. The finding of fact and arguments supporting it seem, to me, to suggest that the comparison was of the films themselves, which would have been inappropriate. SamBC(talk) 18:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus that THF did not violate COI

21) On 10 August, consensus on WP:COI/N from established administrators was that THF had not violated COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Relevant to ShankBone's repeated accusations of COI violations after 10 August. The cite is to NYBrad's closure, but four other admins agreed, and no admin disagreed. THF 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (clarified 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Small point of correction: it appears that a single established administrator (Newyorkbrad) commented on the COIN posting, not multiple adminsitrators. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there absolutely was not a consensus. One admin, Newyorkbrad, expressed the view that there was a possible conflict but THF could "proceed with caution" as the phrase has it, but there was not a meaningful consensus that THF had no COI, and when it was discussed with much more input on the admin noticeboards the lack of consensus was even more apparent. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus against proposed change to WP:COI to prevent talk page proposals

22a) DavidShankBone objected to THF's talk-page edits on Sicko, and attempted to change COI guidelines so that THF's conduct would be prohibited in the future. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Relevant to ShankBone's repeated accusations of COI violations after 10 August. THF 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reject. The consensus was that the proposal, as crafted, would limit speech too much on discussion pages; THF was irrelevant to the reasons for rejection. --David Shankbone 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Toward David: this proposed finding doesn't say that it was rejected in support of THF, just that it was rejected (which it was for several reasons). It was proposed in response THF. Cool Hand Luke 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, disputes are often the genesis for proposed changes to guidelines and polices, which was the basis for Fred's proposal above. That's one reason ArbCom itself exists. Just because my inartful wording was rejected (it also had support from uninvolved editors) does not create any indictment on me, as this proposal suggests. --David Shankbone 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You almost reversed the meaning of his proposed finding! Correcting. The consensus was solidly against a change like what you had in mind, no matter how flowery the language. I do see your point that it wasn't necessarily a groundswell of support for THF, but the THF-inspired alteration was rejected for more than aesthetics. Cool Hand Luke 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said there weren't substantive reasons for the rejection, reasons on reflection I now agree with. They simply had nothing to do with THF, which makes the proposal inaccurate and worthy of rejection. --David Shankbone 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We are in agreement. Do you only object to the title of this proposal? I would like to make a counter-proposal, but I want to get the nature of your objection right. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try this one for a proposal: "In response to his conflict with THF, David Shankbone proposed changes to the COI guidelines. These changes were rejected because they would have limited participation in Talk page discussions too greatly. Once those arguments were brought to light, David Shankbone agreed and stopped participating in the discussion over his proposed change." --David Shankbone 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the title to something that actually describes the subject matter and is a bit less wordy, also with the benefit of not implying the rejection was specifically related to THF. The text of the proposal doesn't even imply the rejection has anything to do with THF, so you shouldn't have any objections to it on that basis. --Random832 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1) "Overwhelmingly" seems a little too strong a word here. But the consensus was to reject, yes.

2) "Prohibit" seems a little strong too. "Discourage", perhaps even "strongly" so, might be better.

3) Good faith necessitates that absent further evidence, we abide by DS's claim that influencing THF's editing was not the motivation for the COI proposal. As stated it merely reflects THF's opinion that it was.

4) It is patently obvious that, assuming for the moment as a premise DS's position about THF's COI, a natural consequence of accepting the COI proposal would tangibly constrain THF's ability to make the type of edits in question. A counter proposal as hinted at by other editors thus might be very relevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

22b) In response to his conflict with THF, David Shankbone proposed changes to the COI guidelines. These changes were rejected because they would have limited participation in Talk page discussions too greatly. Once those arguments were brought to light, David Shankbone agreed and stopped participating in the discussion over his proposed change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reject - this is not what happened. (JOKE!) Agree, obviously. --David Shankbone 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bold and good faith submission of DS's proposal in previous comments. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think that this can be stated as a positive though (in the heading and in the finding): there is a consensus behind allowing good faith talk page participation. I think this "agreed and stopped participating" language should be adapted in regards to the original Sicko#22 proposal at issue here with THF. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

reasonable language suggestion about this proposal. Have a go below...Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first two sentences. But I disagree with the last sentence. DS continued to claim that my talk-page participation violated COI for three weeks after his proposal was rejected, and complains about my talk-page participation in this arbitration, too. THF 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is his claim about your talk page particiption, which is how I read your disagreement here, or is it about his proposed change(s) to COI, which is how I read the proposal? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We can clarify the proposed statement of fact that he stopped discussing it on WT:COI. But he continued to forum-shop the matter. My point is that David lost on WP:COIN, lost on WT:COI. He may have stopped on a particular page, but then reraised the discussion on a brand-new page and then kept shopping for someone who would agree with the bogus charge of COI. The forum-shopping finally succeeded when he persuaded JzG to bring this harassing arbitration. How many times can someone lose the same argument before it becomes disruptive? THF 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that answered my question. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in favor of allowing good faith talk page participation under WP:COI

22c) In response to his conflict with THF, David Shankbone proposed changes to the COI guidelines. These changes were rejected, and the consensus in favor of allowing talk page participation for possible COI editors was affirmed. Once this consensus position was articulated, David Shankbone agreed and stopped participating in the discussion over his proposed change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, I don't see a problem with this. --David Shankbone 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Was this comment actually from David? The edits appear to be by User:WatchingWhales. SamBC(talk) 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Like David's proposal but cast as a positive consensus in favor of talk page participation (as opposed to a consensus against barring it). Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this version of the proposal - I was involved in that discussion, and that was certainly my impression of the outcome. SamBC(talk) 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me. This is a sock I am using in "Retirement" to upload some portraits I have done recently; right now Philip Alston's, which I took today. --David Shankbone 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was much of a problem with conflicted editors using the talk pages, it's what I suggested to THF from the outset. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WatchingWhales

22) DavidShankBone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edits as WatchingWhales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted Fred Bauder 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree, diff noted. I wish to point out that this account is about two weeks old; it may or may not have been created to make a WP:POINT regarding THF's use of Evidence Gathering account, but at this time it has only been used here three times, and civilly so. There is no reason to accuse DS of WP:POINT in its use here. Baccyak4H (Yak!)

If you are going to make statements, please get your facts right: the account is over a year old. --David Shankbone 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eep I missed the year. Thanks for the correction. If anything however, this strengthens my point that the use of this account is not problematic. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THF's laudable civility under the circumstances

23) THF remained WP:COOL in the face of personal attacks apparently meant to provoke him. (See , , , , , , which were mostly simply removed, and see THF's responses to the last three, , , respectively.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Editor has laudable civility. The issues are COI and other editor's harassment. The most vicious personal attacks appear to have been launched by non-parties to this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - THF has been incivil, at times, but especially in recent disputes this is nothing to what he has suffered. SamBC(talk) 14:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We must not be too quick to judge individual transgressions by THF in light of the extreme level of attacks he has been subjected to. THF calling Reuters "left wing" might not be the best choice in a content dispute, but comments like that pale in comparison to the personal attacks he has been subjected to (from Jance, Wikidea, Guettarda, and others). Honestly, looking back at some of those attacks, I can't imagine remaining as cool as THF did. I should note: I have not seen such direct personal attacks from David ShankBone, even though I disagree strongly with other things he's done. ATren 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THF's behavior in disputes tended to inflame the situation

24) In disputes with other editors, THF's behavior tended to inflame the situation., ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --David Shankbone 13:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Exactly which parts of the evidence sections you cite support the statement above? It certainly isn't all of them. Some representative diffs directly linked here would be more useful.

That said, I can almost agree with you from my personal experience. I would say that "In disputes with other editors, THF;s behaviour has been known to inflame the situation, but this has improved significantly." Without that caveat, I can imagine the exact same statement being made with "THF" replaced by "DavidShankbone", at least with reference to disputes with THF. SamBC(talk) 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be some truth to this. THF tends to be somewhat direct, and unafraid to express his strong opinions in content disputes. This seems to rankle some other editors. But I also think that others have had a lower tolerance for THF than they would an anonymous editor, because there seemed to be an implicit assumption that "THF, the conservative commentator" must have a POV-pushing agenda here. I suspect that many of THF's inflammatory edits would have not generated much heat if they had come from an anonymous editor. ATren 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, THF's defence of his editing articles on subjects where others consider he at least has a case to answer on COI was excessively robust, and dismissive of valid concerns from editors with no evident connection to the dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discourtesy by DavidShankBone

25) With respect to use of THF's name DavidShankBone has been discourteous . This pattern continues in his postings to this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would agree. I can imagine that some might suggest a strengthening of this statement beyond simply "discourteous", but I would resist that in an objective finding of fact. SamBC(talk) 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone "forum-shopped" to continue COI violation allegations against THF

26) Following failure to find resolution, particularly not resolution he agreed with, DavidShankbone took the allegation to further forums beyond WP:COIN. This may arguably have been to acheive some resolution, rather than a specific one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'd appreciate if someone could add diffs - I haven't the time, but I know the evidence exists. I'd also like to specifically note that this finding does not indicate that DavidShankbone was wrong to do so. SamBC(talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would also suggest that this case is yet another forum in that shopping excursion, by virtue of the persistent mention of the "documentary rankings" issue, for which THF never made a substantive article edit - indeed, he opened an RfC and then later closed it as "no consensus" for his view. Yet it is still being raised in this case. ATren 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the article Sicko

27) The proper scope of the article Sicko has been disputed. Should the content be limited to film criticism or include coverage of the underlying controversy . Misplaced Pages has no policy on this point. It is a content decision to be decided though negotiation using normal wiki process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, although I would appreciate feedback regarding the truth of the statement that we have no policy on this point. Fred Bauder 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't understand why WP:NPOV isn't the policy on this point: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If there is a significant view about the film that isn't by a film critic, NPOV requires its inclusion. That is the way every controversial movie not created by Michael Moore is treated, which is why I so frequently cite to The Great Global Warming Swindle or The Passion of the Christ or even A Beautiful Mind (film). I further note that the RFC I brought on this issue found outside editors agreeing with my position. THF 21:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As the film itself takes a point of view, it seems reasonable that the opposing point of view should be considered, to satisfy NPOV. Fred Bauder 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have never seen or heard of such a policy, although I am relatively new. That aside, and I agree it's still a question, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement. I believe that this RfAr shouldn't attempt to actually answer the question regarding the Sicko article. SamBC(talk) 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The underlying controversy heavily relies upon the film itself for notability. Therefore, it should be a subheading in the main article, or at least a hypothetical deletion debate would lean heavily toward merger, discounting space constraints. It's up to the editors to decide whether it should be incorporated in the main article, or given a summary style sub-article with in the main. I tend to prefer the former because of Misplaced Pages:Content forking concerns, but I agree that it's an editorial decision to be hashed out on talk pages. Cool Hand Luke 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone made disruptive AfD nominations related to this dispute, and similarly made edits seemingly intended to prepare articles for deletion

28a) DavidShankbone has made several AfD nominations (such as here and here) which are pertinent to this dispute, and seem to fit a pattern of "crusading" against THF.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken pretty directly from evidence presented by crockspot, I feel that most of the content there deserves a finding of fact. SamBC(talk) 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm not entirely sure I support the finding of fact, but with their being an evidence submission with the allegations, I thought it deserved to be here. SamBC(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would support a less loaded finding of fact, we should probably use that instead. "Crusading" seems to be subjective and isn't a Misplaced Pages term of art like HARASS. Cool Hand Luke 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "witch hunting" would do? Fred Bauder 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Crusading" is in inverted commas because it's not the right word, but I don't know a wikipediaism that would fit. "Witch hunting" would seem even more inflammatory. If someone can think of a better way to say the same thing, then I'm behind it at least as much as I am behind this one. I'm still on the fence and prepared to see evidence to the contrary. SamBC(talk) 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the thread so far that there is something here, but also that that word is too strong. The word "stalking" comes to mind, but that has a specific meaning in WP and as such is probably too strong too. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

28b) DavidShankbone seems to have made edits intended to increase the likelihood of a successful AfD or to use redirection to effectively delete articles without (or in contradiction of) a valid AfD consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by breaking out from above. I mainly did not like the presence of the judgmental phrase "even more worringly". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but the first example does not apply. It was never nominated, and a talk page discussion was held ultimately deciding in favor of merger. Users can be bold when merging, and I think David could have been following BRD. The other three edits support this pattern more. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree in respect of the first edit - if anything THF was the one pushing the boundaries by creating that article, it should never have been created at all. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

29) This edit is an example of THF editing information about himself in a point of view way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Just a minor example Fred Bauder 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps, but the changed text is no more POV than the original, which was already a POV in the other direction. An unadvisable edit, nonetheless. ATren 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the context of COI we should also mention THF's edits to the article on the American Enterprise Institute, his employer. He also created and extesnively edited an article on his employer's magazine. There is no question that a person has a conlfict of interest regarding their employer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of view editing by THF

30a) This edit involves removal of an external link which seems OK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is probably what is the real issue here, that THF has violated WP:NPOV on articles, per the evidence I presented. --David Shankbone 16:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Maybe, but it doesn't matter whether or not one particular edit was okay. -Amarkov moo! 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Bauder's point was that the link seems OK and so should not have been removed. Removing links whose POV one disagrees with, while adding links elsewhere to one's own websites, shows a tendency to push a POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

30b)This edit by THF does not conform to NPOV or BLP policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. THF included POV language, such as "Tort Baron" and "With the backing of many wealthy tort lawyers..." and unsourced statements such as those and "Some have alleged high pressure tactics were unfairly used...". These edits clearly violate policy and guidelines. THF edit warred to keep these statements in. --David Shankbone 20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

31) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

32) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

33) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

34) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

35) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

36) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

37) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

38) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikidea banned

2) Wikidea is banned for 30 days due to harassment and discourtesy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

How were my actions harrassment? Those instances referred to above are not. Please have a look at what the first comment was a response to: my words were a complete mimic of THF's own nasty comment - in this edit. As I made clear, again in the first instances referred to above, I want nothing more to do with that kind of stuff. I cannot see how the edits after that are harrassment, which were merely talking to other users - I was glad to be shut of it. The case is precisely the opposite from what is claimed - I don't go setting up whole pages which target individuals. They say you should never wrestle with a coalman, because some of the dirt is bound to rub off. This is the case here. What is proposed is no remedy, the allegations are made out of context, and I ask for people's support on this. I would also note that I've recently been called a "meat puppet", but didn't respond and deliberately avoided this page because I didn't want to get involved - just wanted to improve the encyclopedia. Wikidea 19:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• This edit, which is obviously of a different caliber than the talk-page comment made by Wikidea, was in response to Wikidea unilaterally reverting 53 edits by eleven different editors over 30 days on the criminal law page. It was a good-faith attempt to permit Wikidea to have a sandbox to create a parallel version of the article, since he viewed the edits of everyone else as inferior to his own--Wikidea had claimed that no one else should edit the article until he finished "fixing" it. Wikidea has exhibited severe WP:OWN problems, and has refused to edit collaboratively with every editor who questioned his edits on competition law and criminal law: not just me (though ShankBone has taken Wikidea's side in his dispute against me), but also Luke, Beland, Drtillberg, etc. I haven't investigated his edits elsewhere, but suspect problems, given the deficiencies of those two articles. THF 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We better bring him in then. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred has given him notice of the proceedings and this proposed remedy. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrible idea. A reading of Talk:Criminal Law indicates to me that Wikidea was attempting to edit collaboratively, that it was THF who wasn't by (a) relying on 'voting' rather than consensus or collaboration and (b) essentially telling Wikidea to go play somewhere else while the 'big boys' did the serious work of editing the actual page. Perhaps it was the condescension that THF displayed towards Wikidea which caused his injudicious remark regarding THF's chin. If you give THF a pass for his behavior because of the 'personal attacks' against him, you must fairly do likewise for Wikidea. Additionally, I'd point out that Wikidea's statement here--"Best of luck with your life mate." should not be construed as an anti-gay epithet. Wikidea is apparently British and I would suggest that the correct reading is "Best of luck with your life, mate" similar to his construction of "I'm sorry mate, but you need to have a look at some law books.", also on Talk:Criminal law. An omitted comma can mean a lot. This would be a case of the punishment being well out of proportion to the 'crime'. Ossified 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If Wikidea is british then i agree with Ossified, especially if he uses mate habitually. Very few (if any) Brits use "life mate". 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the diff again; the attack is veiled and has nothing to do with the word "mate". ATren 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I never objected to "mate", I object to everything else in that paragraph, such as the attack on my personal appearance. Ossified's reading of the criminal-law dispute is entirely fictional. Aside from the fact that Ossified glosses over Wikidea's insult to Drtillberg ("Read some law books"), he ignores the fact that WP:3O came into play and agreed that Wikidea should edit in parallel and discuss on the talk page rather than reverting the 53 edits of eleven different editors against consensus. It was Wikidea who demanded that the page be organized according to his preference and everyone work through him. If you read Wikidea's writing, it's a disorganized and unencyclopedic mess, but Wikidea refuses to acknowledge this. It's the same thing that happened at competition law, where Wikidea ignored extensive detailed critiques of the page, insulted every editor who disagreed with his edits, and brought a frivolous COIN complaint against me that not a single other editor agreed with. THF 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

When I read Talk:Criminal Law I see a guy who was making an effort to edit collaboratively, having previously edited boldly. I see other people who condemned his work and in the case of THF, appeared to patronize this editor. Wikidea may have edited boldly, but certainly seemed open to compromise and collaboration. If he momentarily lost WP:COOL then let the punishment fit the crime. A 30 day ban (indeed, a ban of any sort) seems harsh and unjustified. NB - I mentioned the 'life mate' thing because on my initial reading it appeared to be an epithet which would be further indictment of that particular message to THF. On further review, though, it didn't not seem that that was Wikidea's intent and I hoped to avoid having other readers come to the wrong conclusion. Ossified 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ossified: Wikidea doesn't even admit above that telling THF to edit double chin was a personal attack. Coolly reflecting on the weeks-old exchange, he still thinks his comments were justified! His suggestions to THF were nasty in every way and had nothing to do with improving Misplaced Pages. It's difficult to even read THF's suggestion for editing the article as an attack, and Wikidea only seems to have taken it that way because he feels he owns it. Take a look at Talk:Criminal law where Wikidea blasts Drtillberg for daring to edit the article while he was working on it (it's hard to see at a glance because their signatures look similar). This user is unrepentantly uncivil; he has made many more personal attacks than this. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the grand, wide world of personal attacks, making a disparaging remark about someone's chin doesn't rise to the level of questioning their intelligence or integrity or fairness or scholarship, or paternity, just to name a few examples. Should Wikidea apologize for his injudicious comment? I think so. Should he receive a 30 day ban if he doesn't? It's not even remotely fair or reasonable. Ossified 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above, what I gather is I should apologise for saying something about the lower face region of THF (as I may have unfairly implied) - I agree; if what I was mimicking (i.e. the slur on my attempt to improve Misplaced Pages pages) is likewise given an apology for, then I am prepared to say sorry too. Then, perhaps, the matter may be done with. By the way, I am British, and yes maties, I do use the word "mate" (as us in Ol' Blighty are accustomed to do) in a happy Misplaced Pages-collaborative way. As I keep on saying, I just want to improve this encyclopedia. That's why I'm here. Wikidea 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I to gather that you will apologize for your repeated personal attacks if and only if THF apologizes for his article-focused "slur"? I thought Fred was reaching too far to draw Wikidea into the ArbCom, but I've just become convinced that sanctioning Wikidea will be the only good thing to come out of this mess. This user is in pointed contrast to THF and David (who I admit have both been predominantly civil). I'll present detailed evidence against this user when I get the chance, because he should certainly be a party. And Ossified: what do you make of his order to Drtillberg to go read some law books? Does this perhaps rise to an actionable level of personal attack (scholarship, ect. ect.)? Do you have a story about how every editor to have disagreed with Wikidea has earned his attacks? Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why "just become convinced that sanctioning Wikidea will be the only good thing to come out of this mess"? Wikidea's post immediately above yours is clearly an effort to defuse the dispute between himself and THF without admitting sole responsibility for it. A similar effort by THF might forestall the need for you to present detailed evidence against Wikidea unless we intend to go on a witch hunt. Resolution of any lingering issues between THF and Wikidea could also be a good thing to come out of this mess. As for Drtillberg, if there is enough evidence to warrant an ArbCom hearing involving Wikidea's actions, then someone should open it up, but I think it's absolutely peripheral to this ArbCom relating to THF and DavidShankbone. Ossified 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's peripheral; I can accept that, and dispute resolution is moot—user has already unwound THF's edits because THF is not coming back. I just find it astounding you dismiss this user's repeated and quite nasty personal attacks. Some occurred well after after he might have lost his cool in response to THF's supposed slur. If I see him call THF or anyone else a bigot again for no reason (except supporting Microsoft, perhaps?), I'll more aggressively enforce our rules against him. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This time around I hope to de-astound you, then. The key words that you used above were 'dispute resolution', and ideally, that's what this forum should aim for. Dispute resolution, not dispute retribution. I don't think dispute resolution in the case of Wikidea is moot--in fact, I think he made a step towards resolution, above. Whether THF is coming back or not remains to be seen, and is solely up to THF. He wasn't chased off by Wikidea. You are always, of course, free to pursue action against Wikidea, but at some point it may have the effect of appearing to be a vendetta. I'd suggest that the two of you talk it over. Your politics may not agree with his, but there is a way for people to comport themselves when they disagree, yet treat each other with respect. Respect goes a long way towards dispute resolution. "What we have here is a failure to communicate." (sorry) Ossified 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in punitive blocks; Wikidea must mend his ways going forward. Hopefully he simply stops making personal attacks. Incidentally: what dispute resolution occurred in this THF/David case? Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, to the extent that actions short of punitive blocks achieve desirable outcomes. Regarding the incidentally, I'm don't think that resolution has (yet) occurred, although it's difficult to come to happy resolution when one or more of the primary parties opts out of participation. What I'd hope for would be efforts by both parties to tone down the rhetoric, to actively seek consensus, and to avoid gamesmanship/one-upsmanship/wikilawyering/etc. Obviously, both David and THF are very intelligent. They're both trained in arguing the law. Equally obviously, they have very different viewpoints. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe that either came to the hearing with completely clean hands, and that if it's possible to keep both of them editing productively without apportioning blame, that's probably the best outcome. Ossified 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I read this entire workshop, the more I'm scratching my head over Wikidea's inclusion at all. This RfA concerns a dispute between THF and DavidShankBone. Was Wikidea involved in that dispute? Did David even edit on the Talk:Criminal_law or Talk:Competition_law pages? If the answers are "no", then Wikidea should be severed from this RfA (and hastily, I might add). This should not be an inquisition into anyone who has had a dispute with THF. Ossified 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is only relevant in that a number of people who have a disagreement with THF lose their temper. If every person who lost her/his temper on Misplaced Pages was banned for 30 days, only the anons posting from dynamic IP address pools & maybe Jimbo would be left to edit. (And I exclude Jimbo only because I doubt anyone could effectively block Jimbo.) -- llywrch 18:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If the folks that THF disagree with are often driven to lose their temper it may also be a sign that they are being goaded. Back on the Usenet Ted Frank helped create the practice of trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone banned

3) DavidShankBone is banned for one day due to sustained and deliberate discourtesy with respect to repeatedly using THF's name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of what was involved. Fred Bauder 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A ban with length of one day is silly. It truly is. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The person banned seldom thinks so. Fred Bauder 18:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Fred, but that's funny (I honestly am laughing). I've never seen a one-day arbcom ban (that's why it's funny). In response to Amarkov, I sort of had a feud in the past with another user that ended up getting 48 hour block for socks and meatpuppets (he still edits I think, I haven't seen him lately). He complained about that and requested an unblock immediately. The unblock was declined, saying "The encyclopedia will still be here when you get back, it's only 2 days." Kwsn(Ni!) 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that one day is too short to make any real sense. I do not think it should be long, though. The ban is presumably intended largely to "send a message", and one day makes the message rather weak. I'm not sure how long would be appropriate. SamBC(talk) 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Even is David Shankbone is found to be disruptive by this Arbcom, any such disruption was meant as a good faith attempt to correct what David's sees as POV-pushing and COI. Whether or not this is true or not, we should under no circumstances penalise editors for trying to see justice done, even if they are mistakenly doing so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it in good faith? That's not clear yet. If it was, then yes, a ban is unwarranted for trying to see justice done. Although as mentioned above, a 1 day ban is more symbolic than anything. -Amarkov moo! 21:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic of what? Arbcom's determination to slap everyone's wrists regardless of guilt? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually oppose any ban for David. I don't like the way he forum-shopped, and his relentless insistence on bringing up the "documentary rankings" point long after THF abandoned it was tiresome, but I don't think he did anything to deserve an outright ban. He should perhaps be warned that once an issue is settled (and settled in his favor, no less!) he should drop it and move on. Also, he should be careful assume good faith when it comes to THF, even if THF's political ideals and on-wiki style repulse him. ATren 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I now support a long term ban for David ShankBone, after this edit in which he resurrected Wikidea's very personal attack against THF. ATren 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A one-day ban does seem too symbolic (or silly). Harassment parole would be better. Cool Hand Luke 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree on parole. It should be for a substantial length of time, though, to help encourage a better pattern of interaction. SamBC(talk) 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how a ban would be productive either. I cannot conceive that a short (couple days or less) would be anything other than symbolic, and I would be dumbfounded if one would actually be much longer than that. Parole or coaching seems far preferable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Fred is trying to say here is this: David has broken policy, enough to warrant a short block (like one that would result of an ANI report), but not enough to warrant long term monitoring. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Much like James MacNeill Whistler was awarded one farthing in his libel suit? What is the ban equivalent of one farthing? -- llywrch 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes no sense, as stated above. THF changed username in the middle of a dispute in which his former username and real-world name were both a pivotal factor, and THF was piping the name to the initials before then - it's perfectly easy to see why people would continue using his name with no evil intent whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the various proposals by the arbitrators on /proposed decision, it would appear that this is no longer under active consideration right now. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone on parole

4) DavidShankbone to be placed on harassment parole for 60 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This to be seperate or supplemental to any block, and to be the real "meat" of the remedy. I'm really not sure of the duration, I've never done this before, it just "felt" vaguely right. It's certainly not too long or too short to my mind, but I'd be comfortable in the same way with anything between 30 and 120 days. SamBC(talk) 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I obviously meant "ban" not "block" in the last paragraph. SamBC(talk) 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as supported by evidence. David pressed for consideration of a potential COI, which was not attracting proper consideration and on which THF vigorously denied and tried to close off debate. I don't think David was the problem; he might have been a little over-forceful but I really don't think he was harrassing THF just by trying to get the issue looked at by more than one or two people. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. He shopped this stale content dispute around for weeks, nominated two articles for deletion in retaliation, which were overwhelmingly kept, made strange, self-righteous threats to the community about calling his friends on the Steven Colbert show, and seems to have used the noticeboards to endlessly repeat a stale content dispute with THF well after everyone on the noticeboards was painfully aware of his issues. I think David will never have to be blocked under this parole (at least if THF remains retired), but ArbCom should make a statement that his behavior was quite excessive. This statement would be much more practical than a one-day ban; it may be necessary if THF returns (note the hostility on this very arbitration when THF was contributing to it). Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree that my behavior was excessive, but not for any personal animus toward THF. Second, everything I did was in good faith. THF would argue out of two sides of his mouth over this Harass complaint: On one hand, I was consistently told I was not at the correct forum; then when I would attempt to find the right forum, I was "forum-shopping." It's disingenuous when someone feels they have a valid issue--and is as unfamiliar with the umpteen forums we have for issues as THF is--to complain about his "forum shopping" when he is told he is not at the right forum. In other words if I don't find the correct place to address THF's behavior the first one or two tries, then I give up? Let's face it: THF isn't particularly liked on Misplaced Pages. Despite his retirement message, not one editor has written anything to him on his Talk page to say "Don't go." I got quite a few. Sure, they all e-mailed privately. There's a reason for this: THF is contentious, argumentative and a disruptive editor. Does he violate policy and guideline in doing so? Perhaps not the letter, but he does the spirit. When one looks at the totality of THF's edits on Misplaced Pages, and how often he ends up with another editor losing their temper over how he engages with them, it becomes clear THF is not some victim here. He's not particularly liked, he is seen as raising questionable arguments and questionable proposals, he misuses policy and guideline to bully people, and he often ends up admonishing people to be civil or not to attack him personally. Does anyone realize I have only needed to quote the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies perhaps three times in the year I have edited Misplaced Pages? Yes THF has to quote those policies daily. So if disruption is not an issue at all, then neither is WP:HARASS. it's really what it comes down to: THF tries to game the policies and guidelines to gain the upper hand in disputes, including the name issue. I think most editors would agree that it would be nice to have THF's expertise on Misplaced Pages, but THF and his contentious personality that hits people over the head at every turn isn't going to be missed if he doesn't return. People do not like him, and with good reason. So perhaps that needs to be addressed, because unlike THF, I have a pretty good and respectable history on Misplaced Pages. The amount of arguments I have gotten into over an entire year are half the amount THF engaged in during August alone. --David Shankbone 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"He needed to be harrassed off Misplaced Pages" is your excuse? You still don't get it ... Georgewilliamherbert 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry George, but you put that in quotes and that's not a quote of mine. You don't get it: I'm not the only one who was wrong here in my behavior. That much I will not concede. --David Shankbone 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

David: I could not in clear conscious encourage THF to continue with this project under his current account. I wouldn't ask someone to endure harassment for the sake of a hobby. I hope that contributers like THF don't leave and that they feel free to contribute, openly announcing their conflicts like THF did, but his is frankly a marked account. If he hadn't so scrupulously followed WP:COI, he probably could have been an admin by now (surveying his legion work on policy and on the noticeboards—almost none of which devolved into arguments).

Your attitude that supposedly nobody loved him so he's obviously a disruption is kind of perverse. He followed the letter and the spirit of WP:COI, and that's why you and others hounded him. He didn't make attacks, he didn't randomly spit policy at people, but his user page admirably declared his identity and employer. Taking a look at the complaints about him and the arguments he got into (see especially the reprehensible comments by Wikidea and Guettarda), his job as a conservative fellow is why users had so many conflicts with him. Ask yourself: if he had been some random anonymous editor suggesting to add the alternate ranking to Sicko, would you really have posted to so many notice boards and pursued it for weeks afterwards? No—you would have dismissed it as a bad suggestion and moved on. His identity is what got him into trouble, not his behavior. That's why he's gone. If we tolerate this as a community, it will be a clear sign to new editors that they should not disclose potential conflicts of interests lest they be harassed off the project. We must not tolerate it. Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment by Cool Hand Luke. And, I might add, when I saw the level of abuse THF was subjected to, I encouraged him to abandon his current account - not because I thought he was a detriment to the project (quite the opposite), but because it was abundantly clear that he would continue to get hounded relentlessly because of his views. It's a shameful state of affairs that he was forced to leave under these conditions, but I was not about to ask him to stay after the abuse he took and I bet there are others who share that sentiment - pretty much skewering DS's claim that THF was "not wanted here". ATren 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent, David, that anything you might say that remotely resembles an apology will only be used as a cudgel against you by some, and that strains good faith. In your shoes, I'd save my apologies for those who might appreciate them. Ossified 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's evident in that we have on this page an editor being championed as admin material who called two long-term editors vandals (including a member of ArbCom, Raul654), edit-warred over POV tag, and cited to his own blog writings, and admonished at least 15 times in the previous month (I'm sure all for "explainable" reasons once looked into context). Almost everyone has agreed (even those who don't think he has a COI ) has a political agenda. A shining example of an editor. --David Shankbone 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I doubt one editor in a hundred could remain as cool as THF. I couldn't. ArbCom sees nastiness and true POV warriors all of the time; you have practically nothing on this user's behavior. It's not his fault that some editors think all conservatives are bigoted or incapable of speaking truth. That's your (collective) problem. For whatever reason, you and others had issues with a conservative openly and notoriously editing Misplaced Pages. You apparently would prefer that COI editors work under the radar where they cannot be monitored. I have no idea why you want this: perhaps so you can continue utterly ignoring the massive COI editing that occurs on this project every day. This is a huge problem, and Misplaced Pages scanner, ect., only shows us the IP aspect of the problem. THF's self-declared COI is admirable solution. For whatever reason, you and others found his user page offensive and harassed him to the detriment of the project. We should not allow this. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to paint this as an ideological battle, but there are many conservatives on Misplaced Pages who work and get along just fine on here. The problem isn't ideology, it's POV-pushing an activist agenda by THF, and doing so unapologetically. You can link to a handful of comments, but the evidence presented overwhelming shows THF came on here to 'iron out' his perceived left-wing bias on the project; in doing so, he pushed his own POV. The Jim Hood and Robert Bork articles are evidence of that (and your diffs support that; you have two POV editors, THF being one of them, edit-warring over POVs); as is Fred's fact finding above. Alluding to "vast leftwing conspiracy" against THF serves little purpose here except to try and heighten the hyperbole over what is, in essence, an activist editor who has an agenda both on- and off-wiki. --David Shankbone 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My last diff, along with your above comment, support the proposition that you are utterly unaware (or uncaring) about COI edits that came from Jim Hood's office. I don't believe in a left-wing conspiracy (see my comments denying THF's claims of systemic bias above). There is no conspiracy; just editors such as yourself harassing an editor who has an identity they dislike. If we tolerate this behavior from you, we would tolerate it from all possible partisans. That would be a very bad thing for disclosing conflicts of interest. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prima facie, the version THF continually reverted to was more POV than the one by the IP. Let's examine it. THF ("Hood partnered with Mississippi tort baron Dickie Scruggs to file") vs. the IP ("Hood filed suit against numerous high profile insurance companies to resolve disputed issues of coverage for damage caused by the storm"). THF ("Some have alleged high pressure tactics were unfairly used to pressure the insurance companies into settlement" - who is this "Some"?) vs. IP (correctly removed an unsourced statement). THF ("With the backing of many wealthy tort lawyers, Hood announced in 2007 that he was running for re-election") vs. IP ("Hood announced in 2007 that he was running for re-election"). Now Luke, are you seriously contending that THF's (no citation) version of this article subscribed to NPOV and BLP guidelines and policies?! --David Shankbone 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not; it's a BLP disaster. I was surprised you hadn't fixed it yet. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you are shadowing my edits (such as removing the fact that the PR Director of Ropes & Gray, John Tuerck, edits the article and legally threatened me for reverting his removal of a valid controversy the firm was involved in) I didn't want to be accused of problematic editing during the ArbCom. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't fixed it yet since you are clearly aware of it and wouldn't have accusations flung at you for repairing it, as I would. Plus, you are the one supporting THF's edits to the Jim Hood article in your statements above, when clearly the IP edits make the article NPOV compared to THF's POV version. You're supporting THF's version. --David Shankbone 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem paranoid? I've been editing lots of law firm articles. If you must know, I'm a law student, and I'm interviewing with firms. See my edits to Davis Polk, Fish & Richardson, Cooley Godward, ect. I didn't know you added that tag. It seemed like a strange claim to make, although editor was clearly an SPA. And I just fixed Hood before making the above comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you have proposed my edits be shadowed; and considering that you have admitted you have shadowed edits before; and considering it was an edit on a random article; and considering some of the accusations that have been lodged against me in this ArbCom; and considering that much of THF's argument, that you support boils down to his victimization at the hands of a left-wing cabal, I don't think I am the one who seems paranoid here. --David Shankbone 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we also have to recognise the potential that if David has acted like this towards one user, it may happen again. That is another aspect of parole. SamBC(talk) 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone advised to honor other editors' requests for anonymity

5) DavidShankBone is advised that other editors' requests for anonymity should be honored and that refusal to do so is discourteous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I posed a question about this section here. --David Shankbone 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. DavidShankBone has a history on WP and it's a good one. By that I mean that he is a valuable contributor, and doesn't have a history of contention and disruption. His efforts add value to WP. Sanctioning David beyond an advisory would not serve any purpose other than to alienate David to the detriment of WP. This RfA is a situation where two strong personalities, each of whom brought their strongly held beliefs to a couple of common articles and they each attempted to gain an upper hand resorting to non-consensus-building methods which, at best were flitting about the edges of established WP policies and at worst were 'gamey'. Further, perhaps the anonymity issue is one which should be addressed directly with a policy. Ossified 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Further, perhaps the anonymity issue is one which should be addressed directly with a policy" Ossified there is a policy that covers this -->WP:HARASS. 08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt WP:HARASS generally addresses the issue of anonymity, but was apparently written without contemplating the case where the editor is responsible for the release of his own personal information. This RfA is not a simple case because there are other issues (e.g., conflict of interest, expertise) which bear on it. If David was responsible for the initial release of THF's name, then WP:HARASS would clearly apply. That's not the case here and a substantial enough ameliorating factor as to minimize the level at which David should be sanctioned while simultaneously serving as notice that the anonymity portion of WP:HARASS is inadequate as currently written. Using the language of my previous post, I would characterize David's actions in using THF's name as "flitting about the edges of established WP policies" and THF's in claiming WP:HARASS for the use of information that he, himself released, as "gamey" (see WP:GAME -- Examples #1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 may be helpful). Ossified 11:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

" but was apparently written without contemplating the case where the editor is responsible for the release of his own personal information." Thats just not true! Heres the section of harass on privacy violations for you.

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

I've bolded a section for you. 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the accusation of Gaming wikipedia, thats exactly what DS et al have done with the forum shopping and this harassing Arb Com. THF has been the victim of very serious harassment including but not limited to abusive emails, being signed up for a morgage, stalking and more. He has the right to his privacy when atempting to follow CoI has cost him so much. 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are at least three very good arguments why the "very serious harassment" of THF claimed above aren't particularly germane. First, he has published controversial material under his real name in non-WP venues. Those other articles could well be the genesis of the threats. Second, to the extent that those attacks (abusive emails, mortgage signing) occurred off-wiki,, they are unverifiable to the rest of us and, as such, should be given significantly less weight than other, on-wiki evidence. Third, and most importantly, if the proximate cause of the harassment was the dustup with DSB, then the ultimate cause was THF revealing his identity in the first place. Clearly, if he had not revealed his identity, such harassment as claimed could never have occurred off-wiki, and had it occurred on-wiki, could have been dealt with by WP policy and procedure. As it is, THF should have legal remedies available to him for any off-wiki harrassment which may have occurred. Generally speaking, I don't think that either party's hands are entirely clean in this matter (the general dispute between them). They have each suffered somewhat at the hands of the other and can both be (or at least have been) productive members of WP. Hence my belief that WP is best served with minimal sanction beyond warning. Ossified 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"First, he has published controversial material under his real name in non-WP venues" This is not important, again from WP:Harass "This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor" so his off wiki job does not remove the protection harass gives THF. Also the notability or popularity or even the controversial nature of the subject of the harassment is not mentioned as a reason for this not to apply, those concepts are completely absent from the policy.

This is about DSB posting links to mm.com and those articles after he had been told to stop and that was clear harassment in my opinion, which was why i stepped in.

"then the ultimate cause was THF revealing his identity in the first place" Yes THF tried to do the right thing by showing his CoI and that has cost him! It is a travasty that he his the subject of this trial . He has been attacked constantly by many people including admins, while other admins like ElinorD stood by dispite knowing what was happening was wrong and believing so herself. 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypno, you often shoot off half-cocked. You were blocked for de-linking MM.com, and now you say I was told to stop linking to it? You don't have any diffs or any consensus to back up that argument. You also ignore the stated reason for this policy, which I address here as making your entire argument questionable. --David Shankbone 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disapoint you but i was not blocked. That must mean i was right (using your logic). The fact that ElinorD did not have the ***** to do anything about it does not make you right. 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypno, I have apparently not made myself clear regarding THF's non-wiki activities. I am suggesting that it might well be that, lacking evidence to the contrary, THF's controversial, off-wiki activities are what caused him to be threatened/signed up for a mortgage/what-have-you. Is there any evidence that any of these alleged threats/mortgage signings/what-have-you were perpetrated by wikipedians? If so, is there evidence that David was the perpetrator?

No, i never once said DSB harassed THF OFF-WIKI! What he did do was post links to MM.com (ON talk pages!!!!!!) when it was showing THF's private infomation in clear violation of WP:HARASS. 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll allow David to tackle your second point.

"It is a travasty that he his the subject of this trial . He has been attacked constantly by many people including admins..." is very florid language, but when we unclutch our pearls, get up from the fainting divan, and cap the smelling salts, it is obvious from reading all of the pages in question that THF relished the battle as much as David did. If nothing else, what you have here is a battle of wits between two editors trained in the art of argument which got out of hand. Florid language like "travesty" and "attacked constantly" (and my illustrative Victorian metaphor) doesn't accurately describe what occurred. Ossified 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"THF relished the battle as much as David did" Really any evidence of that! To me THF has seemed very unhappy with his dealing with DSB. 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

THF and DavidShankBone should refrain from editing Michael Moore-related articles.

6) THF and DavidShankBone should refrain from editing Michael Moore-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Almost the entirety of our dispute comes from these articles. Both "sides" have existed very well without us, and there are plenty of other places on Misplaced Pages for us to go. --David Shankbone 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvelous. Punish THF because DavidShankBone attacked him on an article, even though no policy violations have been found. Might as well add the principle: if there is an editor you don't like editing an article, you just need to hound them with repeated false allegations until you both get barred from the article because of your kamikaze approach. The Scientology edit-warriors will love that precedent. And I am sure if I were to return to Misplaced Pages, JzG could find other people willing to sacrifice themselves on still other articles I edit. THF 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the question of which policy you may have violated is NPOV. This seems to be at the heart of Arbitrator Kirill's principle above, that "It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda." --David Shankbone 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sounds good, but I would favor a proposal like this, which THF has already accepted. Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. It would give the impression that THF was hounded off the Moore article because of his views. I've seen no evidence that THF actions should subject him to what amounts to a topic ban. ATren 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I think David was suggesting that they just avoid each other. I agree with that, but you're right about how it looks. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Since it is a mutual disengagement, I don't see how it would reflect on one editor more than the other. --David Shankbone 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't. The point is that an outside group attacked an editor and might subsequently get an apparently favorable ruling on it. We're not caving to outside pressure, but it might seem that way. That's been repeating concern in this arbitration. See Durova's comments. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I should clarify my position: if the body of evidence indicated a pattern of abuse from THF, then I would certainly support this remedy regardless of how it "looked". My concern is that any transgressions by THF on the Moore articles seemed to be relatively minor and isolated, and wouldn't have caused this level of concern (and sanction) if MM.com and some editors here hadn't made such a big deal of it. ATren 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The same criticism can be made of those who wanted to de-link MM.com. --David Shankbone 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support this. Whatever the history, THF and David have now made this personal, and that is not good. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding THF's comment above: "...JzG could find other people willing to sacrifice themselves on still other articles I edit." What are you suggesting? Is this evidence of good faith? We've all heard repeatedly about how you have been victimized in the past. Creating hypothetical scenarios in which you will be victimized in the future isn't really helpful. Ossified 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankbone banned

7) DavidShankbone is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of 60 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. David, while a generally positive contributor, remains unrepentant that harrassing another contributor off Misplaced Pages was a justifyable or good thing to have done. Arbcom needs to put its foot down on this point; it's not acceptable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you get unrepentant from, George. Saying "I was wrong, but I'm not the only one whose behavior was problematic here" equals unrepentant, then that's fine. Clearly the comments and evidence that has been left and my own statements support this. --David Shankbone 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you've been accepting that you may have gone too far, and pretty clearly have been since the case here started (and somewhat before that). Your last reply up some, which I linked, seems to indicate that you still feel you were justified, though. If you still feel you were justified to do what you did, with all due respect for your longtime good service to Misplaced Pages, you're a menace to the project and need to get very firmly told not to do it again, and a message sent to everyone else to the same effect. I may be misreading your statement above, in which case everyone else is free to say so here and arbcom is free to ignore this suggestion, but that's what I got out of reading it. Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said above was that my behavior was wrong, but it wasn't without provocation. I should have handled the provocation better, and I should have been more schooled in where to take my valid issues. But I wasn't the only one at fault here, and I won't concede that. Hey, if ArbCom wants me gone then that's fine. I have other things I can do with my time. But the "you're a menace to the project and need to get very firmly told not to do it again" is heavy-handed and casts a blind eye to the extraordinary amount of time and value I have added to the project. --David Shankbone 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too extreme; user seems to be a good editor apart from his issues with THF. That's why I favor parole (probably for longer than 60 days). I doubt continued harassment would be an issue unless THF returns, but if he does and David continues, we should have a remedy in place. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This prophylactic remedy suggestion is excellent. I encourage its followup. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, 60 days is clearly out of proportion here. The topic bans, parole, etc all are reasonable proposals with various subtleties to consider, but this is just downright excessive. I strongly urge the arbitrators to recognize the value DS brings to the project and how something either more equitable and/or more focused stands a much better chance of retaining that value. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

THF had value to the project, too. I don't want either of them to leave. I don't want to kick David off in retribution for THF chosing to depart under fire. But, most importantly, this should never be allowed to happen again. We need a precedent that editors aren't allowed to hound each other off the project without consequence. This is consequence that will stick; the others apparently aren't. Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• After this edit, in which DS resurrects Wikidea's personal attack to make a point, and given his refusal to retract it, I now support this remedy. It is inexcusable to rehash that very personal attack at THF in what is essentially a completely unrelated topic (namely, his complaints about my conflict with Avidor - which is completely irrelevant as a topic in this case anyways). ATren 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked by the overwhelming need to appear victimized that THF & Co. seem to have. The over-the-top descriptors of anything that isn't 'entended-pinky-while-sipping tea' proper, the need to reassure themselves of the 'systemic bias' against them--it's gotten to the point where I relish these posts if only for their humor value. Really, ATren, David was making a damned good point. Rather than rebut it on its merits, why do you want to focus on something insignificant and over-argued already. In the worst possible light that anyone could possibly construe it, it's a comment about a chin, for crying out loud. Having read ATren's blog dedicated to abusing Avidor I'm surprised, in particular, at ATren's very malleable standards for 'civility'. There's a pretty telling contrast between how he wants his fellow travelers to be treated on-wiki, and how he treats Wikipedians he disagrees with from the comfort of his blog. Ossified 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does my conflict with Avidor have to do with this case? If you and David have a problem with my behavior, then raise it in an appropriate forum. This is not that forum. Back to the topic at hand, I do have a problem with the continued adolescent attacks directed at an editor's personal appearance. It is both ridiculously childish and wholly inappropriate, and it speaks to the level of caricature that David and others have turned this editor into. Not only are his views treated with contempt, but his very appearance is mocked in debates as if he were a cartoon. It is remarkably uncivil, and I am shocked that anybody here is defending it. ATren 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And another mocking reference to this user's appearance, this one courtesy of Ossified. ATren 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren, the point is there are no attacks directed at an editor's personal appearance, adolescent or otherwise. If Wikidea's name hadn't been incorrectly brought into this ArbCom in the first place, there'd be no talk at all about the infamous chin. My previous comment concerned how the mere mention of the chin sets off your 'civility alarm' (which I think is an overreaction) and that you are quite capable of being significantly less civil to other Wikipedians yourself (hence the mention of your Avidor blog). Ossified 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"there are no attacks directed at an editor's personal appearance" - what do you call it then? Seriously, how can you possibly justify mocking another editor's facial features? ATren 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, dude. Let it go. It was by someone not involved in this ArbCom, and it was about a chin. It's not worth getting twisted up about. Really. Ossified 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: