Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:08, 14 February 2007

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]

Comment by others:

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 (yet again) are false, and (b) you're trolling.

link : ANi

link : Admin

link : ANi - FAAFA 02:35, 14 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 [1] 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 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 and warranted a block for the vandal, but that's all it was. --Tbeatty 07:07, 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]

Okay - FAAFA

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

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. 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 someone pointing a finger and screeching, "That was a legal threat!" Dino 00:04, 14 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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Comment by others:

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.

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" subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not Bryan has already been cleared up. Mockery and gamesmanship are even less becoming on an administrator, sir. Dino 23:25, 13 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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. [2], [3], 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? Telepathy? 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]

Implied legal threats

1) User:DeanHinnen has posted implied legal threats. [4], [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nonsense. And I'm tempted to use a much stronger word. 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]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 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.

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]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 13 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:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 Again, as before, the personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=107969912] continue by FAAFA.  How is a party participating in the ArbCom 'trolling?'  This is the language that escalates almsot every edit he makes. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-::Considering that this user, Tbeatty a) rationalised and defended a threat posted on my user page was a genuine good-faith 'movie recommendation' when '''every''' other person considered it a threat [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All&oldid=106213943 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' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All&diff=prev&oldid=104794612 link] d) deleted my comments that he felt impugned '''''HIM''''' '''three''' times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Roskam&diff=prev&oldid=106002988 link] - I feel his complaints are actually pretty funny! - [[User:Fairness And Accuracy For All|FAAFA]] 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
+::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All&oldid=106213943 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' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All&diff=prev&oldid=104794612 link] d) deleted my comments that he felt impugned '''''HIM''''' '''three''' times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Roskam&diff=prev&oldid=106002988 link] - I feel his complaints are actually pretty funny! - [[User:Fairness And Accuracy For All|FAAFA]] 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=106287159&oldid=106283651 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 and warranted a block for the vandal, but that's all it was.  --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 :::'''''Clerk note''': Please do not delete or modify evidence or proposals submitted by other parties (or others). See talk page for more.'' [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 252: / Line 252: @@
 :'''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. [[User:DeanHinnen|Dino]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
+::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 - [[User:Fairness And Accuracy For All|FAAFA]] 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''