Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for intervention

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Comment on contributions, not contributors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

This is correct. THF had a long editing history on Sicko where nobody made any issue of his AEI status, even though it was proudly displayed on his User page. It was only when he tried to insert his own article into Sicko that it--correctly--became an issue. It was only on August 9th that [he] because User:THF, 2/3rds of the way through the issue over his trying to insert into Sicko work he wrote. Then [the issue] became [not using his real name] even though the issue over that article was still in process. --David Shankbone 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Respecting expertise

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Conflict of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Activist editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political orientation is immaterial

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Controversial experts

7) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

I will quote from the COI guidelines:

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

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

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

• THF working for AEI creates COI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment of controversial experts

8) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

COI and HARASS

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Reliable sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Original research

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

There is little evidence of bias toward editors of the left

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

As falsification goes, WP:POINT and WP:SOCK prohibits me from hiring an editor to follow WMC to multiple articles and Wikipedia policy boards to complain that someone who writes for Environmental Media Services shouldn't be writing on any environment-related articles or citing to his blog because of COI, and reverting all of WMC's edits, and calling him a troll, and telling him that his picture is ugly, just to see how quickly that someone would be blocked, if not indef-blocked, after disregarding multiple warnings. But my over-under on that scenario is maybe 24 hours, and probably less. (As it is, User:Wikidea still hasn't been so much as included into this arbitration after all of that conduct against me, and he's happily reverted my edits against an RFC consensus once I withdrew from the project. Shankbone saw all that conduct, and considers him an ally.[1] [2]) I have had admins say ludicrously uncivil things to me, simply because of my employer, things that if someone were to say about Cberlet or WMC almost certainly would have resulted in an instant block. Perhaps admin incivility is a problem among left-wing editors, too, but I have yet to see an example. If I perceive bias here, it's for a good reason. The only time someone was blocked for actions they took against me, it took NLT violations and a confession of off-wiki harassment, and even then, JzG argued that I should be indef-blocked, too. THF 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

14) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

THF

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FWIW, that think tank has rules on the activities of its fellows, including policies on disclosure of identity and affilation, and of conflicts of interest.[3] While it isn't the job of Wikipedia to enforce or even consider the employement terms of editors, we should be sensitive to the special needs of some editors regarding their participation in this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Learning from experts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Ryan Delaney

3) Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested a citation for a statement that already had a valid citation [4] ([5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Characterization

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence storage

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

THF was the target of harassment

6) THF was harassed by Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [6], [7], [8], [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

MichaelMoore.com is not an attack site

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

(unindent)I too believe this is critical to this case because the violation of WP:HARASS in the posting then re-posting then edit warring to keep on talk space the link to MM.com was a crucial point in the interreactions of THF and David and others (including me as i edit warred to enforce WP:HARASS). This screenshot clearly has both the users legal name and Username, and this is a Privacy violation as defined in WP:HARASS. Thus i edit warred to enforce the word MUST in this quote from WP:HARASS. "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking." Ive added the bolding. I believe that this arbcom must rule some way on this central issue, it may be that you think i was wrong or david or both of us or none but some statement needs to be made about these events. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comments by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

8) Sicko World Health Organization edit RFC

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

THF edited COI guidelines during a COI involving himself

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) After THF said on August 23, "I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI", he made substantive edits to the main page [10], [11], [12], [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There a couple of examples of THF declaring COI back in February, then making substantive edits anyway.[14][15] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack site policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

"Wikipedia has no attack site policy except Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, a guideline." True. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

THF was harassed by an external website

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

THF complained about "attack site"

12.1) THF made a complaint about being harassed at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents [16] and asked about the "standard procedure for delinking attack sites". [17]. The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Attack_site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Any other interpretation assumes bad faith given that: THF clarified he wanted standard treatment applied in his case,[18] and chastised a tone-deaf editor who continued waring on his supposed behalf.[19] This war served no purpose to THF, and the implication that he knowingly instigated a massive edit war by ending a question in the words "attack page?" is a colossal assumption of bad faith, which the evidence cannot support. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THF is not an expert in healthcare policy or film

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment Sicko

14) THF filed several requests for comment regarding Sicko Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#NPOV_tag_.2F_unbalanced_tag [20] Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#Another_problematic_edit [21] Talk:Sicko/Archive_2#Continued_WP:LEAD_violations [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Identity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what it's worth, THF began demanding that editors stop using his name back in February,[23] yet made no effort to change it until August. He also called the request of another user for privacy "frivolous".[24] It appears to me that some of these requests/demands have been more about gaining the upper hand in disputes rather than a serious concern about keeping his identity private. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DavidShankbone appeared to "keep an eye on" THF

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

DavidShankbone widely reviewed THF's editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

I strongly disagree with JzG's and Shankbone's attempt to retroactively characterize this. There was a consensus[25] [26] [27] [28] and JzG and Shankbone and Rafael1 refused to accept the consensus. Normally, repeatedly reraising an issue that has been resolved by consensus is considered disruptive rather than evidence of a lack of consenus. THF 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

DavidShankbone responses to THF's editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Hypnosadist

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Hypnosadist was angered (as I was) at the refusal of several editors to respect THF's stated wishes - and at least one admin even seemed to be using his name spuriously. Several editors voiced their objections to this (see [29]). Hypnosadist did take it too far, IMO, and both THF and I asked him to cease, which he eventually did - but this was after THF had already conceded the use of his identity. At worst, Hypnosadist is guilty of overexuberance, in enforcing what many of us believed to be a clear violation of policy. ATren 03:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THF's point of view

18) THF, at times, seems to take the position that positions to the left of his are "left-wing", characterizing mainstream viewpoints as "left-wing" [30]. This sometimes takes the form of repeating right-wing propaganda as though it was fact (comment about "Venezuelan dictators")

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During his dispute in February he made statements like: "...[she] is affiliated with a left-wing think-tank funded by indicted plaintiffs' law firm..."[31] and "...her inflammatory anti-reform website run by a plaintiffs' bar-funded left-wing think tank..."[32] Together with other evidence this makes it appear that he has a tendency to see things as having a right/left divide (and possibly also plaintiff/defendant divide). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by that statement, which is 100% accurate, and welcome you to look at the inflammatory website in question. The Drum Major Institute gave Barack Obama a "C" (on an A-through-F scale) for being insufficiently left-wing. I note further the double-standard: User:Cberlet has many similar edit summaries, and has not been subjected to such harassing scrutiny.[33] [34] [35]

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

Also this, posted just yesterday on the RfA talk page: "...other editors affiliated with left-wing organizations..."[36] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact-based bias

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Inappropriate comparable

19.1) THF, for purposes of argument, repeatedly compared Sicko with The Great Global Warming Swindle, a polemic which attacks scientific opinion [37] [38] [39] [40]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

There was a consensus that THF did not violate COI

21) On 10 August, consensus on WP:COI/N from established administrators was that THF had not violated COI.[41] [42] [43]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

22a) DavidShankBone objected to THF's talk-page edits on Sicko, and attempted to change COI guidelines so that THF's conduct would be prohibited in the future. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.[44]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22c) In response to his conflict with THF, David Shankbone proposed changes to the COI guidelines. These changes were rejected, and the consensus in favor of allowing talk page participation for possible COI editors was affirmed.[45] Once this consensus position was articulated, David Shankbone agreed and stopped participating in the discussion over his proposed change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Template

22) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

23) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

24) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

25) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

26) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

27) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

28) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

29) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

30) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: