This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Bryan's conduct and community block not considered

1) The conduct and community block of BryanFromPalatine will not be considered in this proceeding. If Bryan chooses to seek reinstatement of his editing privileges, he may seek reinstatement through prescribed channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If an admin insists on seeking committee endorsement of the block, then Bryan should be allowed to participate in his own defense. Furthermore, it opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of Bryan by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues. Dino 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this process is valueless without such ratification, especially as I assert that User:DeanHinnen either is User:BryanFromPalatine, acting under color of his putative brother's identity, or that Dean Hinnen has been acting as his agent here on Wikipedia in avoidance of this ban, and that therefore he himself is subject to this same ban, which must therefore be material to this case and ratified by this proceeding. However, as a banned user, BryanFromPalatine has already forfeited his right to respond in this proceeding, and his statements to the time of his banning and on the record here are sufficient to ratify this action. --BenBurch 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Bryan ever challenges his community block, the issue can be discussed at that time. Until then, he appears to be perfectly happy with the status quo. Dino 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course he would be comfortable with the status quo! Having danced around the ban so neatly with uncountable "relatives" making accounts to carry out his agenda is a very comfortable position to be in, wouldn't you say? Hmmm... Could I do the same if you succeed in banning me? I have *two* brothers, a sister, a wife, two children, six nieces and nephews all of whom troop in and out of this place all the time (many have keys.) I think if we allow what you are doing to continue it makes a mockery of any block initiated for any reason whatsoever as there are very few people who do not have relatives. --BenBurch 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is for what reason? Because Dean doesn't want it endorsed? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review: "It opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of Bryan by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues." Dino 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Bryan gets dragged into this, I'll be dragging in each and every sockpuppet investigation that was used by BB & FAAFA as an excuse to ridicule and harass Bryan. You want to talk about vexatious process? Each and every post that they made in those sockpuppet investigations and RFCU requests that exhibited any sign of incivility will result in a diff right here. [Partially refactored.] Dino 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to call BenBurch and FAAFA Guy's "clients". While he has stated that they "seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back", [1] he has treated all of the parties more or less equally.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this language is just another example of Dean's complete failure to understand how Wikipedia works. He's a lawyer, and he's brought the lawyer's world-view (adversarial, taking sides) to this dispute from the outset. The fact that Wikipedia is not a law court, this is not a legal process, and the use of legal language and legal threats is generally seen as extremely unhelpful, appears to have passed him by despite numerous attempts by various admins to inform him. Dean is, however, welcome to bring in the sockpuppet investigations - Bryan has about a dozen sockpuppets conclusively proven, but if Dino wants to dig Bryan's grave a bit deeper then I don't see we can stop him. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no doubt that if you succeed in dragging his case in here, BenBurch will gleefully drag in each and every one of the sockpuppet investigations. But I remind you that I was reinstated after a thorough investigation at Unblock-en-l. It's a case of friends and family members and co-workers sharing IP addresses and posting on the same article Talk page because they have a shared interest.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with this process, JzG. But sometimes friends, co-workers and family members have shared interests, and sometimes they use the same computer, without satisfying the Wikipedia definition of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. The Wikipedia article about sockpuppets and meatpuppets clearly describes that situation and cautions those who suspect sockpuppetry to consider such situations. You and the others here who think like you have carefully ignored that portion of official Wikipedia policy.

If the others shared my patience for the Unblock-en-l process (which can be slow and laborious) and if their experiences hadn't completely destroyed their trust in Wikipedia administrators, I am absolutely certain that by now they'd be unblocked as well. RFCU produces false positives; in at least one case where the alleged sockpuppet was permablocked by a trigger-happy admin, RFCU's result was "Possible," one step below "Likely" and two steps below "Confirmed"; in at least four cases where the alleged sockpuppets were permablocked by trigger-happy admins, there wasn't even an RFCU at all; and in at least one case, the RFCU actually cleared the so-called sockpuppet but a trigger-happy admin permablocked him anyway.

That would be you, sir.

BenBurch and FAAFA (and now you) have consistently misrepresented all of these cases as "Confirmed." As if it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of these accounts arose from Bryan's hosiery drawer.

The shared interest of all these parties was triggered on December 5 when BenBurch said to Bryan, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." At that moment, Bryan's father-in-law and brother-in-law happened to be present, and he directed their attention to the computer screen before it was deleted. The father-in-law promptly registered as ArlingtonTX; the brother-in-law promptly registered as 12ptHelvetica; and the seeds of the current conflict had been sown.

Thanks for that moment of barbarity, Ben. Dino 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting new people to join to carry on a battle is not permitted either and violates the sockpuppet policy. There are other ways of dealing with editors you are in dispute with. Thatcher131 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, no one was invited. They volunteered. Some families are like that when a member of the family has been told, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Dino 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which was almost immediately reverted by me because I realized it was uncvil, and you only know about it because you dug through my history. Sad that is all you have to dredge up each and every time you deal with me, an act which in itself is wholly uncivil and a personal attack. --BenBurch 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the barbarity ! You sir, are a barbarous and barbaric BARBARIAN!! (I suspect that you might be from the Barbary Coast as well) Have you no sense of decency, sir?! ;-) - FAAFA 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and you only know about it because you dug through my history.

I know about it because you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with my brother when you posted it, you waited until you were certain he'd seen it because he reacted to it, and then you deleted it. He then told me about it. Don't continue trying to rewrite history. It's all there in the automatic records Wikipedia keeps. Dino 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never reacted to it until after I had refactored it. --BenBurch 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left it there for several minutes, at a time when you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with him. In those conditions you could be sure he had seen it, even though he hadn't posted a response yet. Dino 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to change your story again? Sad. --BenBurch 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "story" has never changed, Ben. You provoked much of Bryan's family with that one comment, and your continued and deliberate baiting and provocation continue to produce the result you seek: provoking people. Bryan doesn't have to ask for help. He never did. Any one of his family and friends could take one look at your posts to him and immediately want to register an account at Wikipedia. Your baiting must stop. Dino 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect it will stop. BenBurch is a BARBARIAN! - FAAFA

Our own User:Tbeatty provides a perfect example of an incivil posting being reverted in this very proceeding; [2]. Now, I don't think he should be abused for having done this, do you? --BenBurch 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my own post as non-germane. Not sure how it was uncivil. I found it humorous. I didn't write anything or comment on it. Contrast it to the note left on my talk page. --Tbeatty 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty a) reverted an old, never-used drawing (of a penis) twice b) created a talk page about the drawing. He obviously had concerns over it. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link link - FAAFA 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is yet another example of Tbeatty's own 'trolling' - on the talk page of one of THE most hotly contested articles on all of Wiki - the 9/11 attacks. (so contentious that I don't participate!) TBeatty wrote:"How about "Paranoid Fantasies of Conspiracy Theorist?" Or if that's too POV, we could go with with "Conpiracy Theories of Paranoid Fanatics". --User:Tbeatty 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) link - FAAFA 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you completely misrepresent reality. I was looking for more evidence of your misconduct and the logs showed you had uploaded Image:Ejacxto.jpg . I went to see what kind of contribution you had made but it was blank. I saw that there were revision. I clicked the wrong link and it executed a reversion. I was not expecting that nor did I know how to fix it. I left a helpme tag on the talk page to ask for assistance.[3]. This is clearly obvious. I figured it out before help arrived and youcan clearly see that I reverted the reversion to the last image uploaded. I made no comment as to the contents of the picture or the author since as far as I could tell, it was blank. And then you left this additional comment there [4], so I guess I found your misconduct in a round-a-bout way. --Tbeatty 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Note to Tbeatty : 1) "you completely misrepresent reality" is incivil and could be considered personal attack. Please refrain from such attacks in the future. (I could refactor it but that's not my style 2) Your recent false denials about not defaming Clinton as a murderer, then having to admit "you caught me" are still fresh on this board and in the minds of the readers, you might consider being more circumspect 3) quit refactoring what I write - FAAFA 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contacts made to TJ Walker and WMF not considered

1) Because the issues of any contacts made to author TJ Walker and to the Wikimedia Foundation have not previously been the subject of any dispute resolution proceeding, they will not be considered by this committee at this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If BenBurch hadn't refused my RfM, for example, we might have worked it all out at that level, including the Walker/WMF issues; and the Committee's valuable time might not now be invested in this dispute. Opposing parties should not be rewarded for their refusal to initiate proper dispute resolution on these issues. Also, WP:OFFICE can be expected to take reasonably good care of itself. Dino 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA. I have conclusive proof that Hinnen was wholly and intentionally dishonest and deceitful from day one, and acted far outside the bounds of acceptable user conduct by coercing a WMF employee to edit on his behalf through misrepresentation, deceit, and duplicity, along with implied and/or overt threats of legal action - all which justified my suspension of AGF towards Hinnen, as permissible under AGF. I am so positive that Hinnen's specious claim that TJ Walker 'admitted' to him that 'he didn't write' his 1999 article - the spurious claim that is responsible for this whole sordid mess is a fabrication - that If I am wrong, I implore the Arbitration committee to permanently ban me.

Hinnen's very first edit (Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page announcing that he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran (not a lawyer - not an active editor, and as such, not an expert on WP) to edit on his behalf, to his POV, after claiming that he (Hinnen) had contacted noted and notable author, pundit, and media coach TJ Walker (CBS and National Review and TJ's Insights) who supposedly 'admitted' to Hinnen that he 'did not write' his 1999 article entitled Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? ( webarchive of article) Hinnen claimed (in his very first edit): "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." (quotation marks Hinnen's) and raised the spectre of a possible libel suit against Wikipedia if she didn't. See my evidence page for more evidence - FAAFA 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA.

Then you should have submitted it for dispute resolution before now. Even when your friend Ben refused to participate in RfM, you could have started your own on this issue, and named me as the only other participant. If it was that important to you, sir, you should have taken steps to ensure that the dispute resolution process was exhausted before stepping in here with it. It's like skipping the trial court, skipping the appellate court, and filing your case for the first time in the United States Supreme Court. No way you should be allowed to do this. Dino 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: FAAFA has already violated the rules of ArbCom procedure by deleting the preceding paragraph. diff Dino 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) your claims are false, (yet again) and (b) you're trolling. Dispute resolution:

link : ANi

link : Admin

link : WMF

link : ANi - FAAFA 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not dispute resolution. Nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. According to JzG, that's trying to solicit admins to take your side in a content dispute. He says that it's vexatious and disruptive. Dino 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. FAAFA, now you know not to do that. I am inclined to say two things about this. (1): This is probably the most important part of the case and (2): It was off wiki, to a foundation employee who has not been heard from since. It is very difficult to be objective with, and therefore may not be acceptable to arbcom. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that needs to be addressed as well. A foundation employee makes an edit without any edit summary, an edit that any editor would know will cause controversy, and then that employee and another foundation employee (Danny Wool) (and I think even Jimbo) don't even bother to respond to the repeated requests from editors and Admins to explain the edit and whether or not it was an WP:OFFICE action, as DeanHinnen claimed. Yeah - that too. - FAAFA 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny did talk to me about it. He confirmed some things, although he did not mention Office status. I assume it was not an Office action, since Office actions must be designated as such. Prodego ^talk 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, as before, the personal attacks [5] continue by FAAFA. How is a party participating in the ArbCom 'trolling?' This is the language that escalates almsot every edit he makes. --Tbeatty 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this user, Tbeatty a) rationalised and defended a threat posted on my user page as being a genuine good-faith 'movie recommendation' when every other person considered it a threat or at least harassment link b) theorized that Hinnen might have actually called and spoken to TJWalker the pro ballplayer rather than TJWalker the author (I kid you not) c) refactored my user page where I called bush 'awol' link d) deleted my comments that he felt impugned HIM three times link - I feel that his complaints are actually pretty funny! - FAAFA 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every other person including you saw it as a non-threat and it was overly dramatic. You mischaracterized the other two things as well and your poisoning the well style of argument is well known. For those keeping score at home, a SPA posted the cover of "Payback" to FAAFA's page after FAAFA was blocked for personal attack. Certainly harassment as I pointed out and warranted a block for the vandal, but that's all it was. (update after he saw that no one thought it was a death threat) --Tbeatty 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty wrote:"I'm confused. What was the death threat? Usually a Death Threat includes a threat and all I saw from the diffs was a movie recommendation. I haven't seen the movie though, but it stars Mel Gibson so pretty mainstream." Link Any interested party need only look at this user's own actions, including his repeated misuse of BLP to remove content he doesn't like, even on talk pages. Link Note his interaction with admins Guy and Gamailel, especially when TBeatty was fighting tooth-and-nail to protect the 'reputation' of conservative mouthpiece, cum-gay-prostitute Jeff Gannon (note regarding my use of the preposition 'cum') solely (I allege) because he's conservative. Tbeatty had no such qualms (or BLP concerns) over writing that Bill Clinton murdered multiple individuals. He also added a BIO template onto the article of an organization that he supports - the now-defunct Islamophobic hate group Protest Warrior to squelch valid criticism. Never have I seen an editor misuse BLP as he has. - Link - FAAFA 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another accusation without merit or facts as I never wrote any such thing. You even put back your BLP defamatory comments "cum-gay-prostitute" about a living person in this hearing. It is completely unacceptable. [6] Tbeatty 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without merit? TBeatty starts and repeatededly adds to a list of 'suspicious deaths', a clear BLP violation, and TBeatty re-ads BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories, over valid BLP objections. (it's OK with him to violate everything he CLAIMS to stand for, cause Clinton is a liberal) By the way, thats the Latin use of 'cum' as in 'also known as'- FAAFA 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me. I actually started that article with this line. A year ago and before there was BLP. --Tbeatty 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I 'caught' you ? Like this is all a game or a joke for you? You RE-ADDED BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories that Clinton murdered people, over valid BLP objections, long after BLP was formulated. - FAAFA 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Please do not delete or modify evidence or proposals submitted by other parties (or others). See talk page for more. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Brad. Dino 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - FAAFA

I believe that this is a very serious issue as it possibly involves fraudulent representations made to Wikimedia Foundation staff in order to made edits to sway consensus on an article, specific and verifiable misrepresentations by whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen and libel against an ongoing enterprise, American Politics Journal, in violation of BLP. These actions of the staff member were then misrepresented as an OFFICE action in order to bully other editors from reverting them. Specifically, APJ was accused of publishing a Hoax article pretending to be an article by TJ Walker, it was claimed that the article was removed from APJ after pressure from whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and that TJ Walker never wrote this article. We now know all three of those representations to be absolute falsehoods. --BenBurch 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of these arguments, there were several opportunities to present these concerns in dispute resolution and they were rejected. Parties should not now be rewarded for rejecting the initial and intermediate levels of dispute resolution on these issues. Go ahead and ask for RfM if it's that important. We have all the time in the world. Dino 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this explicitly clear to all: Carolyn's edit was not an office action. Plain and simple, it was not. There need be no more debate, confusion, and (wiki)lawyering on this point. Picaroon 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first hour on this site besides reading the articles. I had no clue that there was any distinction between Carolyn the WP:OFFICE employee, acting in her official capacity, and Carolyn the ordinary Wikipedia member. I somehow got the impression that all of her actions on this site were official actions, and I apologize to the Administrators and Arbitrators for that misunderstanding. Newbies make mistakes. Dino 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Or are you arguing that it ought to be? --BenBurch 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE is already official Wikipedia policy. I feel no need to argue that it ought to be. Dino 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE is an official guideline, not a policy. - FAAFA 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More hairsplitting. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we exclude consideration of Hinnen's legal threats based on unverifiable original research? Curious proposal. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you're proposing here, sir. My so-called "legal threats" are discussed below. What you're proposing here is an investigation into my contacts to WMF and TJ Walker. An entirely different matter, sir, and one that was never previously reviewed at any level of dispute resolution. FAAFA and BenBurch should not be rewarded for refusing to participate in dispute resolution on this issue. Dino 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well..... excuuuse me! I'm not much on baseball, and I thought that TBeatty must have been referring to a Texas Ranger baseball player when he wrote: "There are plenty of explanations that don't include lying including different recollections as well as multiple people name TJ Walker. You have no idea whether he talked to TJ Walker or not (or which TJ walker, texas ranger)" link - but there is no Texas Ranger ballplayer named TJ Walker (or any Walker)! It appears that TBeatty was actually proposing that DeanHinnen might have called the fictional TV character Walker Texas Ranger played by actor Chuck Norris! (er....didn't that show end production in 2001?) Yikes! That is scary. A truly stunning revelation that forces me to reassess my evaluation of TBeatty entirely. - FAAFA 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern in that case was your use of the word lying to describe another editors actions. Considering that you made an honest mistake, twice, about the Walker I was referring to, I would hope you would understand how honest mistakes may happen without having to call someone a liar[7]. I thought it lacked and assumption of good faith and I simply asked you to stop calling Dean a liar[8]. Shouting well..... excuuuse me! is another typical example of your reaction. No one here pointed out your mistake or belittled you for not getting the reference as it was a trifle. Why are you now shouting? --Tbeatty 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well..... excuuuse me again! Until I researched it in detail, and found the actual quote, I could have never imagined that you would have actually been suggesting that Hinnen had called, and spoken to a fictional TV character. Now that I discover that is what you were suggesting, I'm nearly speechless. - FAAFA 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino appears to be asking the committee to accept his assertions but not challenge the basis for them. That is unacceptable. This is, and always has been, unverifiable original research contradicted by numerous credible sources. A credible rationale for this finding eludes me, unless it's to prevent ArbCom from ruling that it is indeed unverifiable original research, in which case the term "no thanks" fits just nicely. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean / Bryan

1) ArbCo should please consider urgently whether comments like this [9] imply that the account User:DeanHinnen either is or is being shared with the banned User:BryanFromPalatine (note use of first person in response to questions regarding interaction between Bryan and BenBurch / FAAFA) Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that what I was actually responding to was JzG's reference to WP:KETTLE, a statement directed to me, not Bryan. There was nothing the least bit ambiguous about it. Dino 11:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative, and looking at the contributions recently it appears to me very much as if Bryan is editing from your account, as is also strongly implied by the use of first person in respect of text which explicitly refers to Bryan's dispute with the other parties and that within a section which is almost entirely made up of similar assertions, none of which relate to "Dean" Hinnen and all of which relate to "Bryan". You will be well aware that some are sceptical that the two are indeed separate at all. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative ...

It's good of you to finally notice. While our interests and goals are similar, our personal styles in pursuing them are polar opposites. I am a negotiator and a diplomat. Bryan is a warrior. If he negotiates at all, he prefers to fight first, gain the upper hand and then negotiate from a position of strength. The fact that I don't take the bait that is constantly being shoved in my face, while Bryan took the bait with a snarl every time he got the slightest whiff of it, should tell you everything you need to know about this false accusation, sir. Dino 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, we've all noticed your "diplomacy" and "negotiating" style :o) Guy (Help!) 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, sir, everyone runs out of patience when faced with this relentless mockery and baiting. Even me. Dino 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your case, that appears to have been before you even arrived. You have been aggressive and vexatious from the outset. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know how this works. Show us a few diffs proving that I was "aggressive and vexatious from the outset." Dino 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How terribly vexatious and aggressive of me. Oh dear. [10]

There I am, being vexatious and aggressive again. Dreadful. [11]

Vexatious intervention in a sockpuppet investigation. Shameful. [12]

A pattern of vexatious and aggressive edits was emerging. Why wasn't I banned on sight? [13] [14] [15] Dino 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting "WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not Bryan has already been cleared up. Dino 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you been reading what the admins and others have posted here at all? You are the only one here, including the fellow from en-unblock-l who thinks this matter has been cleared up. And you have been instructed already that there is zero binding status to an unblock decision from that list. As has been noted they do not "check Bona Fides." I assert that you either are BryanFromPalatine, posting using his putative brother's name or some other person acting entirely as his agent here - identical for the purposes of Wikipedia. --BenBurch 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: BryanFromPalatine - disruptive user who registers many sockpuppet accounts in order to pursuer biased edits of Free Republic and argue for his unblocking and for sanctions against those whose political views oppose his; DeanHinnen - disruptive user who continues the campaign of biased editing, pleading for BryanFromPalatine, and for sanctions against those same users, from the same IP address. A difference which makes no difference is no difference. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and cross-allegations of a conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article or its Talk page;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen, or the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch; and

4) All three parties shall refrain from editing any article or Talk page whose history shows an edit by an opposing party in the previous ten days.

5) The preceding shall not be construed to prohibit any party from editing his own User or User Talk page, or any page that was edited by an opposing party in violation of this injunction; nor shall the preceding be construed to prohibit DeanHinnen from editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages.

6) Any party violating this injunction will be subject to an immediate 24-hour block by any administrator. Longer blocks may be contemplated, depending upon the severity of any incivilities involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is necessary to prevent harassment and incivility. I concede that I have a COI regarding Free Republic, but I allege that the opposing parties also have a COI there. While there appears to be a truce of sorts at the moment, I am not confident that it will last; and the only reason it now exists is that I'm not taking their bait. JzG told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. The moment I posted on BenBurch's Talk page, I was blocked for 24 hours by JzG; but both BB & FAAFA are being allowed to violate JzG's prohibition with complete impunity. I am alleging a WP:STALK violation by two editors. Both the WP:STALK violation and the fact that there are two of them and only one of me have increased the intimidation factor exponentially. This is not conducive to resolution of this arbitration. Page histories will confirm that I started editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles and their Talk pages, and then I was followed there in an effort to continue this dispute. The proof of the allegation is right there in the edit histories. This injunction shouldn't be drafted in a way that rewards such behavior. Dino 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the 4th part of this injunction. By editing a talk page of an article, one party could essentially own it, by editing it every 10 days. I do not think it would be wise. I disagree with point 2, and I think that all articles should be removed from that point, leaving only user and user talk pages. However, I agree with all other parts of this proposal. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO I am am technically a party in this arbitration request. Be careful with references to "parties", as that would include me. Prodego ^talk 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have disagree with all of the above articles of this injunction. Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have no other gainful employment than editing Wikipedia or so it might be judged by looking at the frequency with which he edits this project. No article he touches will ever go ten days or even ten hours without him re-editing something on it, and he could therefore make a series of preventative edits to freeze out entire swaths of Wikipedia from any of the other parties to this dispute. In fact I think this may be his intention. Further, I believe that all of my edits to the referenced specific articles pass muster as actual attempts to improve these articles. The only part I might agree to is the prohibition against editing each other's talk pages. But as whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have created at least one sock puppet already, if this account is not in fact a sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine, then the prohibition is in danger of being breeched by socks. --BenBurch 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If editors are going to be prohibited from editing articles, then they should all be prohibited from editing the same ones. An unproven allegation of stalking should not be enough to prohibit two editors from editing an article and allow one free reign. User:DeanHinnen's behavior on the Peter Roskam article, while it has improved greatly in the last day or two, has been much more contentious and problematic than any of the other editors whose behavior is the subject of this proceeding, and I had to threaten to block him before he stopped insulting the editors there, including editors who had been working on the article long before DH showed up. Gamaliel 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, this is within the scope of a preliminary injunction. Arbitrators will review existing evidence and make a decision on whether an injunction is advisable, and the particulars of that injunction. In this case, the evidence is painfully obvious from edit histories of all these articles. We were involved in a content dispute on Free Republic. I left and started editing the other three articles. Then they started editing the other three articles. Administrator JzG previously told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. He had a good reason for doing so, and it was one of the reasons why I left the Free Republic pages and started editing Peter Roskam. (By the way, I successfully formed a consensus there and the article is much improved.) After a decision on the injunction, we will then proceed to determine whether their editing of those articles violated WP:STALK. Dino 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is within the scope of ArbCom's authority to issue these kinds of preliminary injunctions. I'm just objecting to the particulars of this injunction. Overall, I don't think it is a bad idea, but it should be applied fairly and uniformly. Gamaliel 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. But these two should not be rewarded for conduct that may ultimately be identified by the Committee as Wikistalking. Dino 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case? Being allowed to edit an article in which anyone in the world is allowed to edit? Users interested in the same topics, in this case US politics, will naturally edit many of the same articles, and you shouldn't get dibs on an article merely due to an accident of timing. If you can show they went to an article merely to harass you, then that is stalking. But their edits that I have seen appear to be in good faith, and the harrassment guidelines should not be used to ban editors from articles merely because you can't get along with them. This idea offends me because it is contrary to Wikipedia principles, and it bothers me all the more because your conduct was worse than theirs on Peter Roskam, and yet if this injunction passes, you will be the one "rewarded". Gamaliel 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case?

Being permitted to continue their gang tactics and Wikistalking on the three articles I have chosen to edit (and disengage from those two). Read my presentation on the Evidence page, Gamaliel. They are continuing their campaign of mockery, baiting and edit warring on Peter Roskam and elsewhere. I've provided diffs to prove it. I disengaged from a content dispute. They followed me wherever I went to continue the dispute. The evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, Gamaliel. Dino 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No credible reason is advanced why BenBurch and FAAFA should be restricted from article talk space. Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages. We typically do not give tendentious editors a free pass during the course of arbitration cases. Dino's definition of "harrassment" in this case appears to mean opposing edits which look, to my eye, to be distinctly influenced by his acknowledged bias. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages.

I repeat: Click on the links to diffs that I provided in my section of the Evidence page, sir. The mockery and baiting has continued. In a few cases it has been exceptionally mean-spirited. I have refrained from any dispute resolution measures only because you would instantly describe them as "vexatious" and start interfering with them. You would probably also permablock me for violating the community ban on vexatious process that you've just obtained at WP:ANI. Click on the links on the Evidence page, sir, and see for yourself. Dino 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I saw you reverting Calton, an editor of long experience and no prior involvement I can see, with an offensive edit summary. I saw BenBurch taking it to Talk, which is what you should have done, and stating the case in measured and civil tones - in marked contrast to your behaviour, as noted above. I have stated this elsewhere, but this case is already a Hydra, thanks largely to you. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Click on this link. [16] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and known conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch;

4) All three parties shall refrain from initiating threads on the administrators' noticeboards or elsewhere in project space in respect of conduct by the others; any requested interventions to be brought here for the attention of the administrators who are watching this page. The sole exception shall be the posting of any edits which unquestionably violate WP:BLP, which may be posted without mention of user names or attendant comment regarding editing behaviour for consideration at the relevant noticeboards. Note that adjudication of what constitutes a violation of WP:BLP rests with the reviewing administrators and not with the parties;

5) All parties, when participating in article talk pages, are required to restrict themselves to content, not to asserted misbehaviour by other parties, and are required to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding original research, verifiability and sourcing. Judgment of what constitutes neutrality or undue weight should be left to independent parties on these talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree to do this regardless of whether it is adopted or not.--BenBurch 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is an alternate version of the above proposal by Dino, which proposal has a number of serious flaws in terms of the Wikipedian ethos (for example, he idea that if any of these editors, with their known political bias, makes an edit to an article or its talk, then none of the editors who disagree with that political bias may challenge that edit, runs fundamentally counter to normal practice). It has already been proposed numerous times that the parties refrain from posting to each other's talk pages; I think all have violated that. It has also been proposed that they do not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. And it has been previously proposed that they refrain from vexatious process, but this, too, has been comprehensively ignored and Dean's proposal above did not touch on this, one of the most disruptive elements of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious process has already been adequately addressed in a WP:ANI community solution that you initiated yourself, and it appears to be working. So I can't believe you've forgotten already. Addressing it again is unnecessary unless there's some sign it's not working. That may explain why it's being "comprehensively ignored," sir. Now perhaps you'd like to explain why you're comprehensively ignoring so very many things. Dino 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom trumps informal agreements. And you miss the point: this is a more neutral version of the injunction you requested, which was never going to be agreed to because ArbCom is unlikely in the extreme to agree a solution where you, an editor with a clear and stated bias, can unilaterally ban named editors with the opposite point of view simply by deciding to edit an article, in however biased a way. I would be absolutely astonished if they agreed to any such thing. Whereas they might agree to accept an injunction which stops the problem, by restricting the parties from the kinds of behaviour that caused it to escalate. Anyway, what's the problem? Were you intending to engage in further vexatious process? Guy

(Help!) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here. Click on this link. [17] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few belly laughs in this entire tedious proceeding. For once I completely agree with FAAFA - the conspiracy bullshit is tiresome in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You absolutely refuse to enforce your own admonition to FAAFA to leave me alone for two weeks, and instead join him in pointing at me and having a good belly laugh. As I've said, start acting like an administrator for a change, instead of a petulant child who has erroneously been given the powers of an administrator. At no time did I mention anything about "conspiracy bullshit." The left-wing bias has been described elsewhere as being similar to the "Yankees Suck" chant at a home game of the Boston Red Sox. Nobody is deliberately organizing it. There is no conspiracy. It's just a mob of like-minded people with the same bias. When they hear someone start it, they join in. Dino 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino, you broke the covenant, you can't then have it applied against others. And FAAFA's comment was a humorous one anyway. No admin would block for something that trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation

1) The parties should refrain from soliciting the involvement of others, either on Wikipedia or through external means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course I'm e-mailing one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. I'm e-mailing JzG, asking him to enforce the warning to "leave each other alone for two weeks" that he didn't hesitate for an instant to enforce against me with a 24-hour block, but refuses to enforce against BB & FAAFA. The result has been a WP:STALK violation by BB & FAAFA. Dino 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're trying to solicit involvement. I am watching the dispute. I don't need your one-sided versions (for example, the last lot you sent me was some perfectly civil discussion). Guy (Help!) 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a couple of Tony Soprano's thugs in a bakery, shaking down the cashier for some protection money, can also appear to be "some perfectly civil discussion" when a cop drives by and looks in the window, sir. They were engaging in an edit war just like their other edit wars, with a thin veneer of civility. This thin veneer can vanish in a New York second and I'm well aware of it from multiple previous experiences with these two. As always, you ignore the exponential intimidating effects of gang tactics. Furthermore, you "strongly suggested" that they leave me alone for two weeks. You did not limit your admonition to "be civil." You admonished them to LEAVE ME ALONE. And you admonished them to leave me alone FOR TWO WEEKS. That was February 3. Today is February 14, sir. Do the math. When I made one post to cordially mention the possibility of a debate between BenBurch and my brother after an identical "strong suggestion," you didn't hesitate for a nanosecond to block me for 24 hours, sir. My e-mails to you were the equivalent of the cashier giving the cop the "high sign" from inside the bakery. You saw the "high sign," and completely made a point of ignoring it and drove away. Dino 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your language is once again, excessively combative. To describe other editors as thugs and gangsters, as you do above, is a clear violation of civility, and your diagnosis of the debate you linked me as a shakedown is based, in my view, on your highly partisan interpretation of the subject. Here are the last three: [18], [19], [20]. What is the supposed problem with these edits? It is the normal process of taking a contentious paragraph to talk, and addressed in a perfectly civil manner. If Tony Soprano's thugs behaved with such civility I think his numbers game would be out of business in a week. Note that you reverted not BenBurch or FAAFA when re-inserting this but User:Calton, an editor in good standing with a wide range of articles edited and who I don't believe has a dog in this particular fight. Finally, I admonished both sides to leave the other alone. You violated that almost immediately, as I recall, and "leave him alone" does not mean "leave him to make contentious edits unchallenged". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you redefine "strong suggestion" as "final warning." Then you again redefine it to include a single post that offers a civil invitation to a civil debate. Then you again redefine it to exclude edit warring. Do you contemplate any further redefinitions, or is that your final answer? The two weeks you "strongly suggested" don't expire for another two days, so I'd like to know whether my next post is going to result in a permablock. Thanks. Dino 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reply to the abopve? If so it's a non-sequitur. You reverted Calton [21], so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one - you - including it. That makes you the edit warrior. Pointing the finger at other editors does not change that. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one ...

There was one editor excluding the material, sir. Count him. One. Then the Wikistalking gang jumped in. The disagreement on that page was later resolved without the participation of the Wikistalking gang, due to the fact that the Wikistalking gang had stopped participating. Other parties were able to work past their differences once those two agitators stopped agitating. Then the Wikistalking gang resumed their agitations, and I decided to stop participating on the page. But wherever I go, they will follow me and attempt to resume this edit war by challenging and reverting every edit I make. Dino 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If taken literally, this prohibition would mean that no party to this dispute could seek the help of an advocate from the wikipedia groups that exist to provide assistance in such circumstances. --BenBurch 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of AMA in ArbCom cases tends to be a bit of a mixed blessing. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. DeanHinnen is still emailing at least one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. Why don't you show everyone the content of those e-mails? I sent you diffs of their posts and said, "You be the judge." That was the entire content of the most recent e-mails. It was your admonition that they were repeatedly violating, sir; and I had been blocked for a single harmless post. Should I have just ignored it? Dino 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are public, full text of emails is not. You say "you be the judge", but when I judge that you were in the wrong, engaging in a revert war against Calton, FAAFA and BenBurch, you seem to be unwilling to accept that. Rather, you ask that the other parties to the dispute be banned fomr the article where, as far as I can tell, you are the one perpetrating an edit war. Why would we do that? Guy (Help!) 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Click on this link. [22] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS suggests that limited solicitation is often appropriate or at least not inappropriate. Without judging whether Dean's solicitation was kosher, this remedy seems overbroad. TheronJ 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My inquiries are on the respective Talk pages and do not solicit anyone to join my side. I simply ask for their comments. This should be allowed since the parties I contacted had previous relevant experience. Generally these issues should not be discussed by complete strangers to the facts. Someone with previous experience with the facts doesn't need to start from Square One. Dino 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction on Tbeatty requested

Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BrianFromPalatine. Tbeatty (who ~~actually felt that he should be made~~ wanted to be an Admin when he had under two months on Wiki and less than 600 edits link) took it upon himself to change that finding to being a sock of JoelHazaltine, then accused ME of false accusations, when I was agreeing with the consensus of several Admins. It has been TBeatty's stated goal since at least August to have me permenently banned, and this shows, yet again, that he will do anything to try and accomplish that.

He added the following to the evidence page.

1) "False accusations. [23] Followed by backtracking [24][25]"

Can't you appoint a conservator for him - or something? A sanction? Thanks - FAAFA 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tbeatty's comments below. 'Baiting' (we're supposed to be 'nice' to sockpuppets now?) is very different than 'false accusations' which the RfAr ~~still says~~ said. I also take people for their word when they request that I be permenently banned. Update : I credit TBeatty for withdrawing his charge. - FAAFA 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As far as I can see, you are the only one who decided to bait the sockpuppet on an article talk page. As for admin, I asked a question about what was required to be an admin when I first started Wikipedia and was 11 months ago and was as simple question. I don't think I've ever claimed I 'should' be an admin as that is not what being an admin is about. You can look here if you think I ever put in for adminship. Second, I have no goal of getting you banned. I believe you have earned a block or sanction. I believe it is clear that you are a disruptive editor that needs a 'time out' of sorts so that you can reassess what the project is and how you relate to it. I also thought you deserved a community ban in August when you had 5 blocks in 8 days and numerous other warnings. I have not called for a community ban since then. Here, I presented a proposal to indefinitely ban you only to gauge the reaction as that is the upper most penalty. I believe a 3-6 month block and permanent parole is probably the most appropriate. Or just a permanent ban on political articles. --Tbeatty 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA has expressed here that accusation was in good faith. I have removed the section from my evidence. --Tbeatty 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not an appropriate venue for pursuing external disputes. Combatants in external disputes are expected to check their weapons at the desk and co-operate for the goal of building an encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I concur with this entirely, and will seek to edit articles in as neutral a manner as I am able. --BenBurch 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia too. Of course. Tbeatty 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

2) Wikipedia has a policy which forbids legal threats. Legal threats, direct or implied, are not allowed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal FYIs may be given, but must be worded in a civil manner

1) If an editor feels compelled to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are acceptable. However, no such statement should be drafted or posted in a manner that can in any way be reasonably perceived as an attempt to intimidate another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a attorneys, User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen both know how to create a legal intimidation that is one tiny step removed from an actionable legal threat. Consequently, all of their "legal FYIs" may safely be assumed to be exactly that; An attempt at legal intimidation. I believe that User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen should be barred from even mentioning legal concerns on Wikipeda to any degree whatsoever. --BenBurch 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am concerned by this, in that Dino's "legal FYIs", which he clearly considers were civilly worded, were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats, especially when combined with Dino's stated position as a legal representative of Free Republic. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, it is not acceptable to drop "legal FYIs" into discussions and expect editors to interpret their nuances. It's particularly unacceptable when an editor claims to be legal representative of an organisation. It's also problematic in that the implied threat was related to original research, and the demand for removal of content which was judged by others as correctly sourced. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats ...

Unreasonably interpreted, sir. At all times, I have made it absolutely crystal clear that I was seeking to PREVENT litigation. In light of the Siegenthaler case and online copyright infringement cases, it should be allowable to express concern about potentially libelous content, or content that may violate copyright law, without one of these two people pointing a finger and screeching, "That was a legal threat!"

The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation ...

Sure enough. That's where I started. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF. She advised me to open an account and remove the libelous material myself. Now I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom for it. Dino 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current wording. Legal FYI's needn't be worded in a civil manner; they need be worded in a non-threatening manner. While Dean passes the first, he doesn't pass the latter. Picaroon

Then how should I have worded my legal FYI, sir? Some are quick to condemn an action as wrong, but seem incapable of proposing an action in the same circumstances that would be right. Propose an action that would have been right for me. Dino 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all. That is the only way that you could have done this and not violated WP:LEGAL. --BenBurch 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all.

Thank you for that moment of candor. All that I have to do, in order to end any dispute with BenBurch, is just shut up and go away. Dino 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a shot :-)

Dean, you should not have worded any "legal FYI" due to your conflict of interest and especially your claim to be a legal representative of Free Republic. If you have legal issues that need to be raised, take them up with Foundation. Implied legal threats based on unprovable original research contradicted by cited sources does not come under the heading of "legal FYIs", and a lot of people, most of whom were previously uninvolved, agreed that your "legal FYI" was an implied threat. You can't make comments asserting that you want to PREVENT litigation when you claim to be one of the legal team who would presumably pursue such litigation. That is an implied legal threat. I suggest you simply withdraw this section. Also, please drop the courtroom language and the RED SHOUTING. This is not a court of law. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement, no matter how politely worded, having the effect of saying, "change this article or you may be subject to legal action" is prohibited on Wikipedia. You can edut the article through normal processes, or you can pursue legal issues through the Foundation attorney, but you can't do both. Thatcher131 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this once more. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF on Monday morning, January 15, and raised my concerns about libel in Free Republic. She said that I should open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. When admins say "Take your legal concerns to the Foundation," and a Foundation employee says, "No no no, just open an account and do it yourself," I open an account and do it myself. In retaliation for that, I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom. But the libelous material was removed, and so there is no danger of litigation. My attempts to communicate these facts, in as civil, amicable and non-threatening language as one could imagine, are being falsely portrayed as legal threats. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the same thing. Do you have any idea how many baseless legal threats are made to the Foundation office in an average week? If there is a credible problem, Foundation steps in. If Foundation says "go do it yourself" that may be interpreted as "go do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up" - which in this case it did not. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, if Foundation choose not to take action but refer it back to editorial judgement then we can be reasonably sure that the concern is not seen as credible. Plus, Foundation counsel is Brad anyway. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like all of your other perceptions of this case, you have comprehensively ignored a salient fact that cuts the legs out from under your argument. In this case, Carolyn Doran didn't just tell me "go and do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up." First she apparently contacted TJ Walker herself, then she removed the libelous material herself. No, she is not WMF legal counsel; she is the Chief Operating Officer. You have conveniently failed to notice that. Under those circumstances, we can be reasonably sure that the concern was seen as credible, sir.

You will notice that most parties have been discreetly silent since that day. TJ Walker and APJ are both completely silent despite FAAFA's repeated inquiries. WMF is also silent. I'll say nothing about the reasons for their continued silence. But you should try drawing some conclusions that don't proceed from an assumption that I'm lying, and that TJ Walker not only wrote the article, but told the truth in that article. Start from the opposite assumption, and try to figure out why they're all so silent. Dino 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed how many people have been convinced by your protestation that a member of the legal team posting "I'm just trying to stop you being sued" when they would be doing the suing is not an implied legal threat? And how many people have been convinced by your unverifiable original research? My count of people you've convinced to date is: none at all. Drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selected portions of emails from APJ

"3) Now for a hint at things to come. Have you had a look at the "deleted" APJ page? It "looks" blank -- but check out the header (in your Web browser, select View->View Page Source [or similar command]). Obviously, Dean failed to check it out -- along with about 1/3 of our pre-2001 content, which is off the site, slugged with white pages, and being converted to the new content management system we launched on January 8. (Converting 8,500 articles takes time)." Link (I pointed this out the first day - invisible text and META tags have been adjudicated to be the legal equivalent of visible text)

"Right now, we're not uploading old web pages (pre-Oct. 2006) until a major bug with our new CMS is quashed. [personal info redacted] and our Webmaster are hoping to have that issue resolved by the middle of the week.There are a couple of other things that need to be done before the DeathThreat story, which was in fact superseded by a longer story, is restored." (full emails available to admins)- FAAFA 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important update

The following text was added to the 'blank page' in the last few weeks. (since Dino made his 'claims') "A new, updated edition of this article will be appearing at American Politics Journal's new database-driven site during February 2007." same META info from Jan 16

This blank page was (until just recently) the location of the 1999 TJ Walker article entitled "Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? " An archived version is available here - FAAFA 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this has no bearing on the case. At best, this indicates that the TJ Walker article was authentic. Even so, using the article was inappropriate (in my opinion) for two reasons; first, I do not think TJWalker.com constitutes a reliable source, and being republished elsewhere does not necessarily enhance its reliability, and second, it is an attempt to smear Free Republic through guilt be association. Ultimately this is a content issue, and the arbitration committee deals with behavior. Thatcher131 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attempt to 'smear' Free Republic. Numerous RS V sources have documented their death threats. This is a notable part of their history, and I am even the editor who added the qualifiers 'handful' and 'small minority' (of members). I ask that you stop your own smears against the editors who have tried only to write a balanced encylopedic article. Thanks. - FAAFA 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

1) Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable, and in my case I assert that this was never my intention. In addition one would have to be quite a "nervous nelly" to allow oneself to be upset by the mere presence of another editor on an article not matter what one thinks of that person. --BenBurch 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable ...

Then no case of harassment would ever be provable. And yet there are people who prove it beyond a reasonable doubt on a regular basis, sir. The intent may be reasonably inferred from the circumstances. Actions speak louder than words. Dino 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment tends to involve rather more than polite comments on Talk pages in support of the removal of text by other editors, so the Roksam article clearly is not harassment. Harassment has occurred in the matter of the various vexatious processes that led to this case being brought. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Polite comments"?!?!?!? Here. Click on this link. [26] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was polite to anybody who has an intact sense of humor. Of course I fully expect that you will willfully construe any attempt at humor as an attack and incivility. It's your job. --BenBurch 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context is important, wouldn't you agree? At the time of that post, the author had already received a final warning for Wikistalking. His Wikistalking had already been the subject of WP:ANI, an admin named JzG had admonished him to leave me alone for two weeks, and ArbCom proceedings had been initiated against him for Wikistalking me. Are you denying that context is important in assessing whether it's humor or mockery? Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An outrage! Pure unbridled barbarity from a barbaric and barbarous barbarian! Ban him! Now! No more delays! - FAAFA

Dino, you live in a glass house. Put down the stone. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

All three involved parties (four if you include Bryan) seem to have violated this, so it's fair to include it. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

1) The term "Wikistalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Penalties for Wikistalking can be severe, up to and including a permanent ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Non-sequitur. No evidence has been presented of vexatious editing as described above. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gang tactics

1) The term "gang tactics" has been coined to describe a situation where two or more contributors collaborate to harass other contributors, who are outnumbered by the harassers. The fact that the victims are outnumbered increases the effect of harassment and intimidation exponentially. Penalties for using gang tactics are therefore increased exponentially.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This term has been "coined" by Dino, Bryan, and the contents of Bryan's hosiery drawer. The fact that they have not succeeded in recruiting allies is not through any lack of effort on their part. I believe this is without merit. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were on the receiving end of relentless, two-against-one harassment, baiting, mockery and edit warring day after day and week after week, without any admin powers and with admins doing little or nothing to intervene except issuing warnings that are ignored like the tall stacks of previous warnings they received, I think you'd be coining a phrase or two of your own, sir. Like this one. Dino 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent stray sock in the drawer? --BenBurch 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the most recent attempt to frame me using an open proxy, exactly like all the other attempts to frame me using open proxies (and post the home address and telephone number of my brother, again using an open proxy). Dino 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence it's an open proxy? Also, the only people I've seen use the words "street gang" are you and Bryan's socks. Given your obvious fondness for The Sopranos, not evidently shared by others, it's more likely that this is more of the usual crap. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fensteren was fond of that term too. What a coincidence! Street Gang - FAAFA 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be ok with some refinement. Some improper conduct (incivility and harassment come to mind) are worse when multiple people engage in them. Other conduct (such as reverting edits) isn't necessarily worse. If four people are reverting your edits, that may be "consensus" rather than "edit warring." TheronJ 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheronJ, thanks for your constructive input. The posted definition at the top of this section only encompasses harassment by two or more users, not edit warring. In the post before yours, I was citing edit warring in addition to "harassment, baiting [and] mockery." A pattern of misconduct well within the definition; even though the edit warring factor doesn't fall within the definition, the rest of it does. The edit warring merely reflects the motive for the harassment, baiting and mockery. Dino 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two is not "multiple" by any rational definition. Two editors is not a "gang" by any rational definition. The problem here is that the Hinnen family have failed to recruit even one other editor to their cause. Just one recruit would have evened the balance. It's not BenBurch or FAAFA's faul that the Hinnens have been unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without merit as per Guy's comment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

1) The term "POV pushing" has been coined to describe the practice of editing articles and participating on Talk pages in a manner that favors one point of view (i.e. conservative, feminist, pro-choice, socialist) over one or more opposing points of view. POV pushing is a violation of WP:NPOV. POV pushing also leads to other violations of Wikipedia policy such as WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:RS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I disagree with the first sentence. POV pushing refers to acting so as to advance a certain point of view. It can occur in any namespace. The second and third sentences, however, are correct. Picaroon 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the word "articles" to the first sentence for clarification. Sometimes a first draft can be a bit ambiguous. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this wording. First, as Picaroon states, it applies to any namespace. Second, it violates only WP:NPOV, whether other policies are violated is dependent on the way the dispute is pursued, and it is possible to violate all of these without POV-pushing, there is no causal link. Third, editing in favour of a given viewpoint is not necessarily POV-pushing - if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality in the article. POV-pushing might describe, for example, DeanHinnen's recent edits in respect of Peter Roskam, but those with the opposite viewpoint, having made their case in a civil manner, would not normally be accused of POV-pushing. I propose instead... Guy (Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality ...

That is exactly what I've been trying to do, sir. And that is exactly what I've done with the Peter Roskam article. I've organized a new consensus and that article is substantially improved. I'd like to be allowed to proceed with other articles on political topics that show a distinct left-wing bias, without being stalked and reverted every millimeter of the way. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But your edit war on Peter Roskam involves other users not involved in this dispute, and your assessment of what constitutes balance goes against the view of long-standing contributors who (unlike you) have no overt bias and do not appear to be friends of the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is always "the other side" that POV pushes... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

1a) The term POV-pushing has been coined to describe the aggressive promotion of a certain point of view in a manner which seeks to give that point of view undue weight particularly in article space. POV-pushing can take place in any name space if it still seeks to promote the view in article space - an example might be templates which serve to overemphasise minority viewpoints, such as conspiracy theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to DeanHinnen's version above. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some combination of the two versions might work out. Perhaps your version, with citation of policy violations as described in my version, plus the examples from my version (conservative, feminist, anti-abortion, socialist). Maybe the word "militant" should be worked in there somewhere. I'll rewrite my version later today by incorporating elements of yours. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of the false middle. The above is my understanding as a long-standing admin, your version was written by you, a new user, to underpin a dispute in which you are involved. The above is close enough, and if any other established editors want to refine it they are welcome. A "compromise" between mostly wrong and mostly right is unlikely to be completely right. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

1) Editors with a conflict of interest are required to be circumspect in respect of those articles where their conflict of interest applies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would go so far as to suggest that editors with an obvious COI should be prohibited from editing articles that are the subject of their COI, although they should be allowed to participate on Talk pages and in forming a consensus if their COI is clearly explained. Decisions by others to participate with such editors in forming consensus should be fully informed decisions. Participation on Talk pages by editors with COIs can provide valuable perspectives in the development of articles, point the way to research resources and be helpful in other ways. Dino 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Peter Roskam talk page : "I have said many times that I will continue to help with this campaign for Pete, and I intend to go full blast on the last 72-hour push." Dino 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) link and diff - FAAFA 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA persists in deliberately distorting that post. I have never given any indication that I was that person posting on the Free Republic thread, or anyone else on the FR threads I've linked. I simply posted it as an example of an FR member, or "Freeper," participating in the Roskam campaign. I've already explained that to FAAFA. Now he's misrepresenting it to the Arbitration Committee as well. Dino 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

1) The dispute started when Dean Hinnen, claiming to be acting as ~~legal counsel~~ a legal representative of Free Republic, stated that he had contacted TJ Walker and received the assurance that Walker had not written a piece attributed to him, and previously published under Walker's name at Walker's website, duly attributed as such. Hinnen further claimed that this was libellous. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have never claimed to be legal counsel for Free Republic. I have claimed to be part of their legal team. This distinction is an important one. Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time. Dino 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic hair-splitting. The factthat you claim to be part of their legal team is not disputed, and the meat of the finding is that the claim was unverifiable original research, which it clearly is. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "semantic hair-splitting," sir. It is an important distinction. When you say in your Finding of Fact that I have claimed "to be acting as legal counsel for Free Republic," when I never made such a claim and I've repeatedly pointed out that I am just a volunteer for the legal team, you've made a false Statement of Fact in ArbCom proceedings. Refactor it. Stop making excuses and misdirecting. Act like an administrator for a change, rather than a petulant child who has been erroneously given the powers of an administrator. Dino 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court of law. You claim to be part of their legal team. That, as far as we are concerned, means you are representing them in a legal capacity. The precise nature of this representation is not particularly relevant to the fact that your contact with TJ Walker is unverifiable original research. "That man in the brown jacket mugged the woman" "It's beige, therefore you must acquit". See? Guy (Help!) 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen actually wrote:"Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time." Comment ? Wow... just wow - FAAFA 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock-en-l decisions provide finality

1) The consensus decisions of the informal committee, Unblock-en-l, provide a reasonable degree of finality concerning issues such as whether a particular contributor is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Any contributor benefiting from such a decision may rely on it. Other contributors must respect it, and admins will enforce it. In the absence of any strong new evidence contradicting such a decision, any suggestion by a contributor or administrator that the decision was improper will be treated as a violation of WP:NPA and will be subject to blocking and/or suspension or termination of admin powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If this had been in effect when I returned from Unblock-en-l, a lot of this acrimony could have been avoided. Instead, opposing parties and even a couple of admins have been free to openly challenge the Unblock-en-l ruling, in the absence of sufficient evidence to reasonably justify such a challenge. Dino 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just not true. Unblock-en-l is a mailing list, and the people there are just regular users. They do not possess the ability to make any decisions there that have more authority then if they make them on wiki. Prodego ^talk 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, Prodego, the decision overturning your lightning reflexes was made unanimously by three admins. No "regular users" were involved except me. Nevertheless, even if the decision involves some "regular users," it should have a reasonable degree of finality. Otherwise, anyone can challenge it for any reason, or for no reason at all. This leads to endless warfare, as you can see. Without a very good reason (well founded in new evidence) that such a decision was wrong, it must be respected. Dino 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean in this particular case. I mean that, in general, decisions made on Unblock-en-l have no more authority then one made on wiki. I have already apologized for any mistake I made in blocking you, and when I did not feel comfortable unblocking you, I directed you to unblock-en-l. Prodego ^talk 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, I have already accepted your apology and I don't harbor any bad feelings about that. I didn't mean to convey the impression that I do. But the Unblock-en-l procedure can be very slow, laborious and frustrating. Once it has been successfully concluded, it should be worth something more than "Okay, run along and happy editing. But you're on your own." Otherwise, why bother? Dino 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your frustration, but as one of the first people to join Unblock-en-l, and one of the list moderators there (and active in moderating, in fact, I approved your message :-)) I can tell you, as Yamla and Lar did, that it represents only the view of those who talk to you, a narrow few. It does not represent an overall consensus, but it serves to review blocks and unblock users affected by collateral damage. It is usually a quick procedure, with just 2 or 3 e-mails, but your's was a more complex case. In your case it worked well, but it is certainly not binding. Prodego ^talk 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I wasn't going to say anything more in this case than I already had when it was proposed, but I really don't think this principle has any merit at all. The unblock list is a tool for users to appeal blocks, and for interested admins to make decisions about the merits of those blocks. If admins make a decision to unblock as a result of postings to this list, they are just as likely to be overturned as if the decision had been made after comments on AN/I and certainly, have not made any sort of final statement on the matter. It is my view that Dean has advanced this theory before, using his unblock as some sort of claim to carte blanche approval of his activities, and this line of theorising needs to be squelched. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the alternative is constant warfare. When BB & FAAFA saw doubts expressed about Unblock-en-l results (by admins, for God's sake), it emboldened them to renew their false accusations, and what their "attorney" JzG wouldn't hesitate to describe as "vexatious process" if I had done it. A lot of people consider being called a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" an insult. You saw the results of the refusal to accept Unblock-en-l's ruling as binding. Can you propose an alternate resolution? Dino 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

First, the unblock-en-l driven decision by one admin to unblock you (in my view that decision was not a ruling, it was a decision to unblock by one admin, based on input from a few admins... unblock-en-l is not a court that issues rulings, it's a tool to allow editors who have been blocked to appeal that block and for admins to, of their own volition, decide to unblock), does not establish precedent, does not establish bonafides and it is not some sort of binding finding Please be minding that, instead of winding us all up about it.
Second, ... an "alternate resolution"??? Well, after a certain point in disputes, when both sides are conflicting to the point that it's interfering with our work here, we really don't care who's actually right or who's wrong. We will tend to block both sides for acting like prats, and let calmer heads do the corrective work (if any) that is needed on the articles. That's the remedy I think arbcom ought to carry out... block the lot of you and be done, because the lot of you are wasting a lot of precious volunteer time and effort that could be used much more productively. As Charles M. said... we are not here to be another place to carry out longrunning battles started elsewhere. If you will allow me my own POV for a minute (which POV is already abundantly clear on my user page), I say a pox on both your houses, DU and FR, you're both amazingly clueless in your beliefs, and both amazingly wrong about what actually needs fixing in the US, and your childish warfare, whereever I see it, but especially here, is very tiresome and beside the point. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more. We are not another battleground for you. Take your advocacy (and especially your rules lawyering and stridency) elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) PS, other readers, sorry for taking on the bad habit of overbolding and overitalicising, and most especially: sorry for letting my POV out for a stroll for a minute. :) But it beats swearing. ++Lar[reply]

Speaking as a list administrator for unblock-en-l, you don't seem to have an understanding of the function of that list. It is not an administrative body empowered to issue rulings or findings, it merely acts as a conduit for blocked users to request assistance and serves the same function as a Wikipedia noticeboard. Any administrator who performs an action based upon an unblock-en-l request is merely acting within the normal scope of their duties as an administrator and such actions do not have any more special significance than any other administrative action.

Deciding who is or is not a sockpuppet should be outside the scope of unblock-en-l in any case, and really is an issue for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Gamaliel 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, RFCU produced a false positive. It does not take into account the possibility of two users editing from the same IP address, such as family members (in this case), or co-workers, or students at the same school. In cases like those, Unblock-en-l is better than RFCU any day of the week. Dino 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU was right in all positive findings INCLUDING "you". As you have admitted here, all of these socks, yourself included, were created at Bryan's behest to, in his words "Pursue the Cabal". This is the very definition of the Wikipedia term of art "Meatpuppet". You are a meat puppet of BryanFromPalatine, and consequently have no right to be here whatsoever. --BenBurch 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... were created at Bryan's behest ...

Please post your proof of this. Can you prove that Bryan instructed his brother-in-law, his father-in-law and I to create accounts and "Pursue the Cabal"? Would that be in the form of a copy of his written instruction or a taped conversation of some sort? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous ArbCom rulings, we are allowed to apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then for our purposes it may be treated as a duck. we do not draw any distinction between a banned editor posting, and a banned editor dictating posts to his family members. When these posts are found by CheckUser to come from the same computer, we generally wash our hands of the user. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, first let me say that I apologize for having beaten the dead horse for so long. I know that this has all taken far too much of many people's time, including yours. My incivility and the number of formal complaints I have filed in this matter have largely stemmed from my conviction that circumstances are just as you now understand them to be; an army of puppets. All I wanted (and posted on his user page at the end of several of his blocks) was for Bryan/Dean/DP1978/et. al. to stop using puppets and to engage constructively and collaboratively as an editor of the Free Republic article. I believed then and I still believe that I can be a fair editor of that article and can work with my Conservative counterparts to make that a Good Article. In fact there are several editors I have worked well with there. But when I know I am dealing with a rule-breaker, I have a very hard time assuming good faith or being civil. Especially when that rule-breaker is combative and incivil and has a smug demeanor. This is finally why I have recused myself from Free Republic - I could not continue to be an effective editor there and remain even marginally civil to the Hinnen Family sock drawer. --BenBurch 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Lar says, this is simply false. Regardless of the ins and outs of this case, unblock-l discussions do not provide finality. Finality is only available from Foundation, I'd say, since all other decisions can be appealed. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between "finality" and "a reasonable degree of finality"? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you understand the difference between a couple of list participants agreeing to assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, and a community consensus? The claim you make in this section is false. Unblock-l provides no degree of finality whatsoever, unblock-l is simply a means for blocked editors to request unblocking, it has very few active participants (nothing like the number that come to the admin noticeboards) and - the killer punch here - even the people who were active in that discussion have repeatedly stated that it is not to be interpreted as any kind of community consensus. Which makes it look not just false, but wilfully false. I suggest you withdraw this section. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not already abundantly clear from my remarks so far, I suggest you withdraw this section as well, as it is entirely without merit. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without merit as per Lar and Guy's comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users

1) Editing on behalf of banned users, or acting as proxy for them, is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that acting as a proxy for a blocked user in dispute resolution should be allowed. Dino 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Banned users are banned for a reason. Every single banned user has had chances to stop their misbehavior prior to being banned, and Bryan, like every other banned user, let these chances fly by. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that comment was in response to a proposed off-wiki debate between BenBurch and VoiceOfReason. Not sure how it relates to being a proxy. --Tbeatty 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OFF Wiki??? Why not have the debate on his (Bryan's) Talk page? Yeah - sure. - FAAFA 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, response to off-wiki debate. --Tbeatty 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'proxy'? "I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action. Why not have the debate on his Talk page? Bring your little friend." Dino 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC) - FAAFA 07:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was DeanHinnen's posting of a "certification" by proxy on the RfC against BenBurch that i was referring to. This is completely unequivocal: Dean posting on behalf of banned Bryan. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. You'd think this would be obvious. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

1) Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Text from WP:BLP; might warrant trimming down a bit. Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Excellent. And may I add that when Bryan was blocked for 24 hours in December, it was for a 3RR violation when he was trying to remove derogatory material. It is alleged that in response to that improper 3RR block, he created his first sockpuppets. Dino 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you stipulate that these were indeed socks? --BenBurch 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "It is alleged" do you not understand, Ben? Dino 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The devil is in the detail. Bryan was removing sourced criticism which was the subject of ongoing debate on Talk, that is considered vandalism. The solution to this is not to revert war, it's to call the cavalry. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently described "calling the cavalry" as "vexatious process" when one side does it, but not the other (even when the other side does it far more frequently). Would you care to explain that, sir? Dino 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a civil request for assistance in removing defamatory material, and an overt attempt to get editors blocked when you are in a ocntent dispute. Seems to me that those independent parties that reviewed these edits were not persuaded of Bryan's case. Nor does the enjoinder to remove poorly sourced negative material act as a blanket permission to expunge all criticism from articles on clearly controversial subjects. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

With the caveat that Dino's claim that personal communications trump verifiable external sources is clearly outwith this provision. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources about living people

1) Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Also from WP:BLP. Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Outstanding. Thank you. Right on the mark. Dino 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This goes a lot further than current WP:RS guidelines. Material which is directly attributable to known authorities is not especially problematic even if it is published on a blog, we just shouldn't use blogs as the major sources for an article. For minor facts and statements there's no real problem, and if we want to say "X described this site as such-and0such" and we cite it to X's blog then that may well acceptable, if X is a reliable source. It's an editorial judgement which needs to be assessed by editors without a vested interest in the content. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is extended to include ongoing enterprises

1) The official Wikipedia policy WP:BLP is hereby extended to include articles about ongoing enterprises, including corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. An ongoing enterprise is just as likely to be libeled by a POV warrior as a living person, as we have seen in this case; and an ongoing enterprise may accuse Wikipedia of libel, as Siegenthaler did. Such events would damage and disrupt the Wikipedia project, and damage the reputation of Wikipedia. This cannot be tolerated. Dino 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego ^talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No. This is not the case now, and to extend it through ArbCom decision, especially in the case of a claim based on unverifiable original research, is highly problematic. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Articles about ongoing enterprises' is official policy

1) The essay, Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is hereby adopted as official Wikipedia policy governing articles about corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups. The policy shall be referred to by the acronym "WP:AAOE" in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an alternative to the previous proposal. The essay mirrors WP:BLP in many respects and is a word-for-word copy in some paragraphs. Dino 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego ^talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That is an inactive proposal, not even a current guideline, and if ArbCom elevated it to policy in this way there would be riots. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP should not be used to advance a POV

1) BLP based edits are powerful components of WP that can and have been misused to delete RS V sourced criticism from articles and talk pages in a partisan manner to advance a POV. BLP must not be used to advance any POV, or in a partisan manner. FAAFA 11:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cautiously support. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who

1) It is not necessary to prove conclusively that multiple accounts are operated by the same person in order to take action against them. Accounts that pursue the same goals in the same disruptive manner may be treated as a single account for arbitration purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Does "disruptive" mean "reverting the partisan left-wing POV pusher"? Or does it mean "filing for dispute resolution in good faith"? Perhaps it means "starting one meatpuppet investigation when a pair of editors are acting like meatpuppets"? Or "suggesting that derogatory material with abysmally bad sourcing should be removed from the article"?

And are you going to treat BenBurch and FAAFA as a single account? Dino 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Common principle in many cases. Thatcher131 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Similar to my comment in "Comments by others:" at #DeanHinnen aides and abets BryanFromPalatine's ban evasion. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse of course, per the duck test. And Dino - no. BenBurch and FAAFA have widely differing edit histories, the only problem here is that both of them (along with other editors in good standing) find your edits problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

1) For the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but redundant to the above #Who's who section. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring an editor is legitimate

1) Where an editor has a history of biased contributions, it is legitimate to monitor that editor's edits. It is not permissible to threaten or harass them, but it is permissible to engage in civil debate regarding content which is seen as biased, or to bring such bias to the notice of other editors of an article.

BenBurch harassed Bryan

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing BryanFromPalatine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to Bryan. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are Bryan. Thanks for clearing that up. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting "WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not Bryan has already been cleared up. Dino 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep saying that if you like, but it has not. --BenBurch 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not useful without some evidence. Ideally, a proposed finding of fact will have a couple of diffs showing the best examples of the behavior, or a wikilink to a section on the evidence page, so that the arbitrators can evaluate the proposal. As a bare statement with no evidence, you are asking the arbitrators to find your evidence for you, which they may or may not do. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about Bryan, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA harassed Bryan

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing BryanFromPalatine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to Bryan. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about Bryan, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on Bryan

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against BryanFromPalatine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to Bryan. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's the neologism you seem intent on coining to describe the "gang of two", I don't see the relevance of your point. Bryan was a one-man gang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 18:08, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about Bryan, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch harassed Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. [27] [28] [29] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA harassed Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. [30] [31] [32] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. [33] [34] [35] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch Wikistalked Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. [36] [37] [38] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA Wikistalked Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. [39] [40] [41] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch guilty of POV pushing

1) BenBurch is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA guilty of POV pushing

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External disputes brought to Wikipedia

1) The dispute represents an external dispute brought to Wikipedia. DeanHinnen in particular appears to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to pursue this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This accusation fails the moment arbitrators take a look at edit histories of Peter Roskam, Bill Nelson and Nancy Pelosi. Those articles had nothing to do with this dispute until I was followed there by opposing parties. My purpose in participating at Talk:Free Republic was to convince others to remove material I found libelous, not to pursue any dispute. Once that goal was achieved, and this very same admin "strongly suggested" that I leave BB & FAAFA alone for two weeks, I left the Talk:Free Republic page and started editing other articles. And then they are the ones who pursued me, sir. Dino 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users

1) User:DeanHinnen, who is stated to be the brother of User:BryanFromPalatine and edits from the same IP address, pursued BryanFromPalatine's dispute on his behalf following Bryan's ban, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch and elsewhere, including posting on behalf of Bryan by proxy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have posted as Bryan's proxy in dispute resolution. I pursued the removal of material libelous to Free Republic on behalf of Free Republic. All my other edits have been on my own behalf, sir. In some families, brothers tend to think alike. Perhaps you're not familiar with this tendency. It does not necessarily mean that one is acting as the other's agent. Dino 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted as Bryan's proxy. This is acceptable in the case of advocates seeking ArbCom review of bans and blocks, not in the case of continuing the pursuit of a vendetta against another editor. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that dispute resolution is "pursuit of a vendetta"? Dino 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino guilty of harassment

1) Dino harassed BenBurch and FAAFA through the mechanism of numerous vexatious uses of process (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch, multiple postings to the administrators' noticeboards, e.g. [42], [43], and by actively soliciting administrator involvement against BenBurch and FAAFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An essential element of this accusation is the word "vexatious." I did not intend for my actions to be vexatious. I intended for my actions to resolve this dispute. "Actively seeking involvement by an administrator" to enforce Wikipedia policy? What was I supposed to do when they posted personal attacks? Just take it like a man? If admins are unaware of a violation of Wikipedia policy, how are they supposed to find out about it? Dino 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can provide the contents of numerous emails from Dino soliciting my action, as an administrator, against BenBurch. The ANI threads Guy (Help!) 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Read the evidence page. Click on the links to the diffs I provided. Read the constant tone of mockery and ridicule, sir. And if your friend Guy succeeds in dragging my brother into this, the remarks you made in the sockpuppet investigations and RFCUs are even worse. Your remarks go far, far beyond a polite disagreement over the content of an article, sir. Otherwise you and your friend FAAFA wouldn't have received those 24-hour blocks for incivility.

Also, another reason why you got a 24-hour block was "misrepresentation." This is a polite way to say "lying," sir. Your entire participation in this proceeding, as well as FAAFA's, consists of misrepresenting the evidence. The constant distortions, half-truths and spin-doctoring don't even stop here. Dino 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm now realizing that whether DeanHinnen is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet is of no serious consequence; he is aiding in ban evasion either way. Picaroon 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty has misused BLP

1) Tbeatty has misused BLP to a) advance his POV and a blatantly partisan agenda link1 and link2 (compare and contrast the two edits - and note that after TBeatty violated BLP and defamed Clinton with accusations of murder, he actually argued this point when attempting to keep critical info out of an article on a politician whose poltical affiliation he supports: "All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them. When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem") b) to censor legitimate free speech on another editor's userpage in a harassing manner link and c) to delete and censor valid discussion link (many more examples of this misuse of BLP can and will be provided) - FAAFA 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty is guilty of 'POV pushing'

A question to the Reference desk asked about Global Warming in Great Britain. Tbeatty even used this as an opportunity to push his politics, his POV, and his 'conspiracy theories' about the media and 'global cooling' ! "I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [44] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) link As for Tbeatty's 'conspiracy theories' about 'lots of suggested outcomes', 'alarmism', and 'global cooling', 600+ scientists from 40 countries say : 'HUH?' FAAFA[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Observe how FAAFA has tried to turn WP:BLP upside down. It's intended to protect the Wikipedia project from becoming a source of controversy and a target of libel lawsuits. The edits made by Tbeatty and by other like-minded editors, such as CyberAnth, are right on the mark. Jimbo Wales has said repeatedly that no information is preferable to poorly sourced derogatory information, and he has said it in the strongest and most crystal clear terms in the English language.

Left-wing POV warriors ignore that, however. They dredge up whatever negative information they can find about conservative organizations and politicians, no matter how unreliable the source. In the Free Republic article, they relied on Todd Brendan Fahey, a self-admitted drug addict and alcoholic who brags about the quantity and variety of drugs and alcohol he has abused, and the Walker/APJ combination of vicious partisanship and self-publication (even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Walker wrote it). ArbCom is urged to use this case as a platform to clarify a zero-tolerance, no compromises policy about poorly sourced derogatory material in article space, particularly in articles that are politically sensitive. Dino 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to mistake your own biases for neutrality. New World Order is generally recopgnised as anti-semitic, removing sourced critical commentary is not WP:BLP it's whitewashing. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think I am party to this arbcom nor has any avenues of dispute resolution or comment been used. Regardless, I think those edits stand up to scrutiny and illustrate my point very well. Tbeatty 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are "Left-wing POV warriors" as well as "Righ-wing POV" warriors. Assessing involved editors contributions to the project, should be an aspect that the ArbCom should study. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even here you misrepresent what I wrote. The question was about localized cooling of the U.K. which is a predicted outcome of some climate models that predict overall warming. The fact that global warming is occuring does not mean that there are not regions of cooling. In fact, the citation I provided was from the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a strong advocate of global warming theory. My pont was only that "global climate change" includes different changes in different parts of the world but the media focuses on global warming. It seems you have a beef with UCS, not me. --Tbeatty 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The waters are already muddy enough without dragging Tbeatty in. His disaputes with FAAFA appear to be separate and largely unrelated, I don't think they illuminate the Free Republic case particularly. I don't see we should be making findings of fact in respect of Tbeatty and his interactions wiht others, or theirs with him, as that would be a separate ArbCom and would require separate prior dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who brings evidence to an Arbcom hearing can be studied for their actions, I believe its normalyl a warning that admins give to people and possibly its also on the arbcom page. Since TBeatty has choosen to involve themselves in this dispute and bring up evidence against FAAFA, that was taken from my userspace regarding actions that FAAFA has already been punished for, I think its only fair that their own actions are examined. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen edits disruptively

1) Hinnen's behaviour on Peter Roskam shows a pattern of disruptive editing, as does the dispute with respect to the original research and TJ's writings. The amount of disruption Hinnen has caused is out of all proportion with his substantive contributions to main space. Edits to the Roksam article include removal of sourced material [45], repeatedly re-inserting material judged trivial by other editors [46]. Comments off wiki [47] indicate a storng connection between Free Republic and Peter Roskam.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Removal of sourced material" enforces WP:BLP in this case, because Wikipedia must avoid the appearance of siding with the critics. That article, about a freshman Congressman with one month of service, was 10 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Dan Burton, a controversial 12-term congressman. It was 12 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Frank Ballance, a congressman who was sentenced to four years in prison for a felony committed while in office.

When reviewing the repeated re-insertion of material "judged trivial by other editors," the Arbitrators are asked to consider that in most cases, the "other editors" are BenBurch and FAAFA, dragging around the content dispute from Free Republic and Wikistalking me everywhere I go. Dino 13:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But you have a far-right perspective, and others (including others who are long-standing editors not party to this dispute) disagree with both your interpretation and the way in which you pursued your agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more concerned about legal threats than POV pushing and there has been plenty of POV pushing by all parties here. If a ban is done on Dino based on his editing history, then much the same can also be said of FAAFA and to a lesser degree BenBurch.--MONGO 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputed. FAAFA is certainly disruptive. On the other hand, we can scarcely consider Dino's many, many assertions of disruptive editing of others without considering Dino's own editing style, which is combative to say the least. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen's edits advance a political agenda

1) DeanHinnen's edits to main space advance a political agenda in line with the Free Republic website and forums, e.g. [48] - on firther investigation it turns out that (a) there is no evidence that Pelosi had specifically requested a C-32, and (b) White House Press Secretary Tony Snow characterized the story as "silly" and "unfair to the speaker.", further that neither the White House nor Pelosi's office were involved in direct negotiations over her transport and that it was a matter between the Sergeant at Arms and the Pentagon. Bill Livingood regretted that his security concerns and request to the Pentagon had been made into a political issue. This edit is at the very least highly questionable if not an outright violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is alleged disruptive editing of the article Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On the one side, Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly known as NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and BenBurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are allegedly anti-Free Republic; on the other side are DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to work for Free Republic, and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Allegedly anti-Free Republic." Well, let's see. Where should I begin? There's so much evidence. BenBurch is the founder and administrator of a website called WhiteRoseSociety.org which seeks to prove that the Bush Administration represents the rise of fascism in America. "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism." The website has provided several puerile "Bush = Hitler" references in the past. Since the lead of the Free Republic article described it as a "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" for a couple of months, the COI should be obvious. BenBurch also acknowledges that he was a long-term and active member of Democratic Underground, a left-wing rival of Free Republic, before he was banned. (That admission was made on his Talk page and he recently deleted links to his archives, thereby concealing and effectively destroying the evidence against him.)

FAAFA has also admitted that he is a member of DU, posting there "at least once or twice a week." [49] He speaks in hushed and reverent tones about BenBurch's work on WhiteRoseSociety.org. The COI problems of these two should be very, very clear. Dino 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Got to begin at the beginning. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association

1.1) The disputed edits seek to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence will show that BenBurch and I have been NPOV and fair in our edits to the Free Republic article (WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one") and furthermore, several admins noted that Dino/Bryan and their proxies had attempted to exclude any and all valid sourced criticism. A review of the edit history will show that I added much more info that is neutral or even 'positive' than info which could be considered critical. Such additions were a) Jim Robinson biographical history b) FR's couterprotest activities in opposition to Code Pink at Walter Reed Hospital c) Tony's Snow's FR participation d) The Dixie Chicks 'crediting' FR as being 'instrumental' in the country-music station boycott of their music. - FAAFA

Until very recently, your edits consisted of an effort to find any negative material about Free Republic anywhere on the Internet — no matter how abysmally sourced in partisan self-publication, drug abuse and alcoholism — and dump it into the article, in complete disregard for WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises. The January 7 version of the article is a hatchet job, and a side-by-side comparison of that version with Democratic Underground confirms that it's a hatchet job, sir. Dino 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every diff I cited shows an attempt to portray Free Republic (the forum) in a bad light based on the statements of selected posters, or the founder. You're smart enough to know that you can't come right out and say "Free Republic supports death threats against liberals." [55] Trying to accomplish the same thing through guilt by association, even using a reliable source, doesn't make it acceptable. Thatcher131 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented" - FAAFA 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here, for example. Thatcher131 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more examples of my bad light - dare I call them smear tactics ? :

JimRob Bio and

Tony Snow and

Dixie Chicks and

Discussion (important reading as it shows Bryan's sock invasion) and

Walter Reed (entire Walter Reed - Code Pink section written by 'moi') - FAAFA 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Thatcher131 : Your own political procilivities are well-known and I expect will be taken into account by any astute and aware Arbitrator. Some may eventually succeed in whitewashing the Free Republic article as is their goal, but any interested reader need only venture off Wiki and read Free Republic itself - and comments from the founder himself - comments such as calling genuine American War Hero and Prisoner of War (over 5 years) John McCain 'A treasonous bastard' and 'traitor to your country' and they will find the truth. Carry on ! ;-) - FAAFA 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to DeanHinnen's comment below. The documentation of 100 people showing up at an event FR hoped 20,000 would show up at is an entirely different section, written at a totally different time than the Walter Reed section. Also, FR's Kristinn Taylor said 20,000, and it's in the WAPO article. You've claimed 10,000 more than once. I suggest you review the advice you've been given on Original Research and stop playing fast and loose with the truth. - FAAFA 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content, may or may not be germane. Thatcher131 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ArbCom case is about editors' behavior. Nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Two editors were seeking to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. That is part of their behavior. In an attempt to rehabilitate his track record, FAAFA started writing the Walter Reed/Code Pink section, but even that was spin-doctored in a way that cast Free Republic in a bad light, i.e. specifying that a rally organizer prepared for 10,000 people and only 100 showed up. Dino 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat problematic. Consider: if an animal rights group has a number of members who become known for taking direct action, and the group does nothing to distance itself from that, including leaving their posts on its web forums unmoderated, does that not reflect on the group? All we need here are reliable secondary sources who make the connection; if the connection is made and said to be significant by reliable secondary sources then we need to reflect it in the article.. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional disputes

2) In addition to the Free Republic dispute, Tbeatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has introduced evidence alleging that Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS is and has been a contentious and disruptive editor on many other articles. Much of this evidence has already been the subject of a Request for comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. More basic background. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Precisely, there is a prior Rfc and sadly, the situation detailed there has continued unabated.--MONGO 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to MONGO : I learned from one of the best! (but I try to use more sarcasm) LINK I am forever in your debt ;-) - FAAFA 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, problems seem to persist wherever you edit.--MONGO 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the attempts to cover your tracks never seems to work well.--MONGO 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover my tracks? That sounds like a 'CT' to me MONGO! ;-) I changed that post to make it even more descriptive and accurate! (and less biting) Too bad I don't have admin powers and then I could erase my posts and even their histories, eh? Lighten up, bro! It's all good! (since 11/8 anyway) Peace, bro! - FAAFA 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that MONGO has had a long history of opposing FAAFA and standing up for TBeatty. It should also be noted that most of TBeatty's evidence was taken from my userspace where it was compiled and dealt with in a RfC that led to a good outcome for everyone but myself and FAAFA. Using past events that have already led to punishments and resolutions in an Arbcom, in order to bring more punishment, is overkill, its also not preventative, its double punishment, and against the point of Arbcom. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

3) An edit war developed at Free Republic on December 9 over the insertion of critical material. [56] [57] [58] [59] BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. [60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More background. Thatcher131 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry by BryanFromPalatine

4) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [61] [62] [63] [64] and checkuser results. Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [65].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Background. Thatcher131 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We should probably look out the ANI threads here, Bryan's disruption was discussed several times before a ban was enacted. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen

5) DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claims to be associated with Free Republic's legal team, contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about an allegation that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site. This claim was sourced to an online publication by journalist TJ Walker; DeanHinnen alleges the article is a hoax and was not written by Walker. WMF employee Carolyn-WMF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested DeanHinnen edit the article himself, but also removed the allegation. [66] Dean explains the edit [67]. BenBurch recreated the paragraph using a different source [68].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One extremely important point, Thatcher. The "recreated paragraph" that used "a different source" did not allege "that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site." The distinction is critical. Any website open to editing by the public and dealing with politics, particularly in the polarized atmosphere of the past 14 years, is going to have a few threats of violence posted now and then. Free Republic deletes them immediately. The first version of the paragraph was libelous. The second was merely biased: something we've come to expect when Democratic Underground alumni are writing an article about Free Republic. Dino 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Freepers are never biased at all :-) Guy (Help!) 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Continuing. Thatcher131 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeanHinnen blocked

5.1) DeanHinnen was blocked as a sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. After discussion on unblock-L, he was unblocked. Dean claims to be BryanFromPalatine's brother; checkuser shows they use the same IP address.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Laying out the history some more. Thatcher131 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats by DeanHinnen

5.2) User:DeanHinnen has posted implied legal threats. [69], [70].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nonsense. I have always made it absolutely crystal clear that I was trying to PREVENT litigation. The finding of Unblock-en-l unanimously confirmed that I was seeking in good faith to remove libelous material from the Free Republic article. Dino 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice DeanHinnen's wording below implying that he is a party to FR's legal actions : "" We didn't sue APJ because..." - FAAFA 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those comments are implied legal threats. If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat. Particularly for the BLP notice, I am broadly sympathetic to Dean's point that an organization should be extended similar protection to a person, and I appreciate that he seems to have been trying to get attention to that point. Still, IMHO, Guy is right on this issue. TheronJ 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat.

First of all, that's not what I said sir. That's what Tony Soprano's thugs would say to the bakery cashier. Second, I point out yet again that I'm not Free Republic's legal counsel. Let me be completely clear about this. I am merely a volunteer for the legal team. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run almost entirely by volunteers, each of whom provides his own professional expertise in his own area of expertise, free of charge. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic has one attorney who gets paid, but it isn't me. I collect no fees. I work pro bono. I have never participated in litigation for them in any capacity. I do not decide who they sue and who they don't sue. Without exception, I have always advised against litigation, preferring instead to seek amicable resolutions of disputes; and in those disputes where I've participated, I have always been successful.

There is no reason why I couldn't serve in a similar capacity for Wikipedia if we can just get past the current unpleasantness, and get these two off my back.

There are many stars in the Free Republic galaxy; and I'm just a faint little star out on the edge of that galaxy. Others shine much more brightly. My brother, for example, has been quite the accomplished legal warrior for them. Several years ago, he was instrumental in negotiating the reduction of a summary judgment (against Free Republic) of about $2 Million in the Los Angeles Times lawsuit down to a mere $10,000. This was more than a 99% reduction. Failure would have meant death for Free Republic. They literally saved the website. Furthermore, the negotiated settlement removed any suggestion from the final order that Free Republic violated copyright law. It was absolutely brilliant. And there have been other brilliant victories that didn't get as much publicity, such as the City of Fresno case. I've done nothing approaching that.

But on a clear night, I can provide a little bit of light ... and perhaps gently illuminate an amicable solution here and there. Notice that the libelous material in the Free Republic article has now been removed. Dino 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, your vexatiousness is exceeded only by your hubris. Stop grandstanding. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I remain quiet, people lie about me; but when I speak up, I'm accused of making legal threats, or grandstanding, or "vexatious process," etc., etc. Dino 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, per Wikipedia policies, concerned parties can either deal with problem articles by using back channels, including talking to lawyers and making legal threats if they feel that is necessary, or by editing the articles on Wiki through the normal editorial process. Making legal threats on Wiki is prohibited. Explaining how successful you have been in defending Free Republic, or claiming that you are here to save Wikipedia from lawsuits, may be admirable, but it entirely misses the point of the WP:NLT policy. Thatcher131 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I apologize. Dino 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Now, care to apologize for using sock puppets, for being disruptive, for attacking any number of people? Then we'd be getting somewhere close to resolving this problem. --BenBurch 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About that lawsuit..... "How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit – and how their right-wing nutcase attorney got disbarred". Since Hinnen now claims that APJ removed the TJ Walker article because it was 'libelous', this one must be accurate, or, as a member of Free Republic's legal team, he would have had them remove it too. They seem to have an entirely different 'take' on this lawsuit. - FAAFA 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Keep dragging around that unreliable partisan source like a stray dog with a mouth full of roadkill. It tells all who see your posts here exactly what you're all about. We didn't sue APJ because they're a small-circulation partisan nest of vipers. It would cost a lot of money and the benefits would be minimal. Just consider the source and that article will be seen for what it is: a web of lies, distortion and ridicule carefully woven around a few tiny bits of truth. Dino 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you claimed : (regarding the TJ Walker article) "AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued.Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued." link I'll find the quotes where you talk about how litigious FR and JimRob were, and how JimRob 'liked' to sue people. Odd that you would spend $110,000 to sue one troll - but not to sue a site that is anything but 'low circulation' as you falsely claim - a site that has a second 'libelous' article about FR on it! American Politics Journal is the fastest-growing political magazine on the Internet - Over 39 million hits per year -Nearly 4500 articles archived online -Over 10,000 subscribers to the daily e-mail edition, including some of America's foremost opinion makers. about APJ - FAAFA 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to fit my current train of thought. I think these comments are fairly described above by Theron ("Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it,").

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.

Community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine endorsed

1) User:BryanFromPalatine was banned by the community for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption. This ban is endorsed by ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you're going to seek endorsement by ArbCom at this time, Bryan should be allowed to participate in his own defense. This endorsement should not be considered or given at this time because it will unnecessarily complicate an already complex proceeding. Bryan is already the subject of an indefinite block. If he ever wants to come back, he can seek to be unblocked through the usual channels. Dino 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. It's a review of the process, not the ban itself. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it this way: "This BAN is endorsed by ArbCom." Therefore it's a review of the ban. Dino 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an endorsement of the ban, which means a review of the process. Please stop splashing bold red text everywhere. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a sale on red electrons recently at Radio Shack --BenBurch 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note:

User:BryanFromPalatine has been notified of the arbitration. He may submit evidence by e-mail to an active arbitrator or arbitration clerk, who will post it or e-mail it to all arbitrators via the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notice on his Talk page isn't going to do it. He hasn't even looked at Wikipedia in about three weeks. I'll contact him, but I doubt that he'll be interested. Dino 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is a banned from political articles

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a banned from political articles, talkpages, and other Wikipedia venues such as AfD, XfD's etc. This includes biographical articles of political figures such as politicians and political activists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this. Perhaps a ban for a period of a couple of months from the Free Republic article, and a requirement that he not belittle other editors no matter how much they may appear to deserve it. Mock politeness, even obvious mock politeness, can still be used to get a message across in a more civil manner, and I know he can rise to that occasion. He is a valuable editor of political articles. --BenBurch 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Tbeatty has been involved in warring with FAAFA, so there really is no surprise that they would seek to remove the alternate POV. Further as noted below, "political" is horribly broad. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Tbeatty 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political articles is a braod terminology as even many feel the artilces related to 9/11 are political and FAAFA/NBGPWS has been active there as well.--MONGO 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parole would be better. I'd endorse that no problem. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from contributing to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this, I do not feel what FAAFA has done warrants a permanent sitewide ban. Prodego ^talk 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Prodego said; ditto. --BenBurch 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.

This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. While not the best behavior, attempting to use Arbcom to remove those with differing political opinions is overboard. Anyway arguing on one article normally warrants an article band or probation, surely not a sitewide ban. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Tbeatty 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I find him tiresome and vexatious, but despite numerous discussions on the admin noticeboards over the months I don't see an indefinite ban as justified. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified. He may be a bit too sharp at times, but I has shown he is capable to edit collaboratively (at least during the informal mediation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:DeanHinnen

1) Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen to be banned from editing Wikipedia (main article space) for a period of three months, following which he or she is on probation to be civil in all of his or her dealings, to obey the rule of WP:1RR, to not post on the talk pages of either User:BenBurch or User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, and to make no reference whatsoever to legal consequences of editing decisions for life. Where he or she has valid concerns in that sphere, an ArbCom admin shall be appointed a "Special Master" for purposes of hearing his or her concerns and acting upon them if in the Special Master's sole judgement there is cause to act for the protection of Wikipedia. He or she shall also have this probation revoked should he or she use a sock puppet for any purpose whatsoever. --BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to be banned from editing Free Republic ~~or its talk page~~ for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.--BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.

This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I disagree. It should be stiffer than that. He has many blocks and a previous RfC on his bahavior. Even his behavior at this arbitration are atrocious. --Tbeatty 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed by prohibition to be civil. After a year of editing with civility, he will have made a habit of it (as will I.) --BenBurch 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a principle that he has already been warned about. It is expected of editors, not a punishment. The next escalation is block or ban or other sanction. Have him demonstrate his civility in an area of wikipedia that is less contentious than political articles for 1 year. --Tbeatty 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with three months off Political articles. A year is far, far too long. --BenBurch 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. An article ban might be justified, standard civility parole would be unproblematic, but we have to have a really good reason for preventing people from even commenting on a talk page, for example to point out errors of fact. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So amended. --BenBurch 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:BenBurch

1) User:BenBurch to be banned from editing Free Republic ~~or its talk page~~ for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.--BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as per discussion above. --BenBurch 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This man's User Talk page and its carefully concealed archives are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and FAAFA will be right there with him using gang tactics.

This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page? Sorry, my friend, but you are grasping at straws here. And;

Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please? --BenBurch 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page?

That's easy. You create two pages of archives and then, when you realize they support you in the same way a hangman's rope supports a condemned criminal, you delete the links to them. This forces others to invest a lot of effort into either finding the pages or reconstructing them.

Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please?

Yes, there's some more of that relentless mockery that you and your friend can't live without. No, I'm not taking the bait. Stop shoving it into my face. Dino 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless mockery? Sheesh. Tough room. You appear to construe every minor attempt at having a sense of humor about this as some sort of attack. Which I think is MUCH of the problem most of us have with you. --BenBurch 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to review the relentless mockery of my brother by you and your friend. You gleefully baited him into self-destruction. After that, it would be foolish to believe for a moment that I'd ever find any humor in anything the two of you have to say. The moment I started using words like "mockery," "ridicule" and "baiting" to describe what you are trying to pass off as humor, you should have understood the message loud and clear: You're not funny. But you still persist. Dino 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino, drop the stick and step away from the horse. Of the three of you (four if you count Bryan), BenBurch is, I think, the only one whose edit history holds up to any kind of scrutiny, and he's also the most ready to accept critique, compromise and resolution. He is also the only one who shows much capacity for self-criticism. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm impressed by Ben's attempts to acknowledge and, in fact, make up, for his past mistakes - could you try doing the same, Dean? However, I'm just not liking the wording of this proposal, and can't put my finger on why. Picaroon 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you favor only final solutions. It is good for you that nobody on "my" side of this process has proposed the same against you. Or do you seek to motivate such a proposal? In any case I have said that I don't care if I am blocked or banned. Dealing with you has made this project zero fun for me, and I suspect for others as well. I won't spend my time on an activity that I no longer find rewarding. I am only here because several editors and administrators asked me nicely to rescind my retirement from Wikipedia and see this process though. In any case, I do expect that if you continue to be combative, uncivil, and vexatious here in this proceeding, that you will wind up being locked out of editing no matter what I propose. I can only wonder at why you choose to be in this venue with anything less than a fully cooperative, civil, and apologetic frame of mind. --BenBurch 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly stated that I accept responsibility and apologized for my part in this. [71] [72] But I have been called a "paragon of civility" and despite the damage I've been relentlessly baited into doing to that reputation, I hope that I can repair it after you and FAAFA are gone. Your history here is long and turbulent. His is just about as long, and even more turbulent. I've been here exactly one month and (with the exception of the first extremely civil hour or two) I spent the first ten days permablocked, and developing my reputation as a paragon of civility at Unblock-en-l. For all practical purposes, I've been here three weeks. As a newbie, I hope that I can be given another chance.

But as veteran Wikipedia POV warriors, a final solution for you and your friend appears to be the only solution. If I saw any sign that a less draconian remedy would work, I would certainly be open to the idea. But there is no such sign. Dino 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were called a paragon of civility by members of en-unblock-l one of whom later wrote the following about you;

“

As one of the three editors mentioned by JzG above, I would like to certify JzG's following comments as accurate: "final judgment is not a "committee" judgement, it's three admins who decided to WP:AGF and give Dean Hinnen a chance as the "brother" of a banned user, on the basis that he promised not to be disruptive." It was not the intention of any of these three editors (as far as I am aware) to pass off the unblocking of DeanHinnen as anything other than this. Specifically, this was not a consensus of "all admins" such as one might claim after discussing the matter on WP:ANI or some such. I am unsure whether or not unblock-en-l should be classed as a committee. Nobody elected or even appointed us. However, to the best of my knowledge (and the list archives are still public), there was no significant dispute about unblocking DeanHinnen at the time. I am expressing no opinions on Hinnen's edits since the unblock, only certifying JzG's quoted statement as an accurate depiction. --Yamla 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

So, what happened to your promise to en-unblock-l, eh? --BenBurch 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what happened to my promise, Ben: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [73] You've admitted that you and your friend engaged in a campaign of baiting and badgering, for the purpose of baiting me into incivility. It's a signed confession, sir. And with all the aggravating circumstances — your lengthy and turbulent past histories at Protest Warrior and elsewhere, your previous gleeful baiting campaign against my brother, your Wikistalking, your gang tactics and your use of abysmally bad sourcing to smear conservative organizations and politicians, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight — all indications point to the final solution I've proposed.

It's unfortunate. Both of you are clearly very bright. You could have been real assets to this project. But in my opinion, you have consistently chosen to use these gifts to pursue a political agenda and to bait anyone who gets in your way into self-destruction. The project will be much better off without you. Your gifts and the way you employ them may be more useful at Dkosopedia, since they produce the same high-RPM left-wing spin that you can't seem to live without. In fact, I'd be surprised if you aren't already contributing there on a regular basis. Dino 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are very bright then you are very foolish. Nobody forced you to rise to the bait. Especially, noboidy forced you to start from a position of having already risen to the bait. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Grossly excessive. Of the three main parties, BenBurch is the only one I'd give a rat's ass about losing fomr the project. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is placed on civility parole indefinitely

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on civility parole indefinitely. Blocks to be administered by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - maybe with the option of review after a year of good behavior? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is policy, so since there has already been repeated violations of this and repeated blocks, some people might see that as sufficient to simply ban him indefinitely. The proposal I posted is what I think is more than fair. He could always ask for clarification at anytime in the future.--MONGO 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is banned from editing political articles for 6 months

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from editing political articles for 6 months. This includes talk pages of political articles.

or

1a) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on parole for 6 months and may be banned from any article or Talk page he disrupts, such bans to be discussed at the community notieceboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this, despite my distaste for FAAFA's style, because it prevents him notifying problems on Talk. I'd say a topical ban may be justified but it could be along the lines of "may be banned from any article he disrupts", so if he is able to engage in civil discourse we don't need to take action. I therefore propose 1a instead. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months

1) User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months. He may be blocked by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him if he violates 1RR for the six months after the closing of this proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: you mean one revert per day, right? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1RR is one revert...so an edit and one revert back to that edit is 1RR...two reverts back to an edit is 2RR and would be a violation. This wouldn't mean a revert of obvious vandalism of course.--MONGO 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard revert parole, reasonably uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied

1) User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied. Further legal threats by DeanHinnen may result in an indefinite block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This will go a long way in heading off further talk page confrontations. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Interpretation should be liberal, as per the usual wording. Dean's judgement about how threatening his words are is clearly not in line with community norms, we need to be explicit that it is not his call whether or not a statementis an implied threat, implied threats should be withdrawn immediately and without demur. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This'll make it much easier for Durova, Jossi, Jzg, Prodego, myself, and any other admins intent on keeping the peace to actually keep the peace. Committee members, may, of course, make a motion to change the length of time as they see fit after the close of the case, if this remedy and its current length of time is endorsed; alternately, anyone can make suggestions about the proposed duration of probation right here and now. Picaroon 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly an attractive proposal. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of bans

1) All site-wide bans are to be enforced with blocking. All article or topic-wide bans are to be enforced with reversion on sight per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits, and blocking may be used in the case of repeated violation of bans. All blocks and bans to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A clerk may want to replace this with standard wording from previous cases. Picaroon 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]