Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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 to enforce against me, 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)

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)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

POV pushing

1) The term "POV pushing" has been coined to describe the practice of editing 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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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

No original research

1) The dispute started when Dean Hinnen, claiming to be acting as legal counsel for 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)

Comment by others:

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

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.

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)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

BenBurch harassed Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

BenBurch Wikistalked Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

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)

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

Comment by others:

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

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:

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

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: