Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop

The parties are not to tamper with each other's presentations

The parties are advised that it is not appropriate for a party to the case (or anyone else) to remove or tamper with the evidence, workshop proposals, or other submissions of another party. Please do not do so. In the event of a problem with another party's submission, please respond in your own section, or if necessary, ask a Clerk for assistance.

It is also suggested that jumping directly into the Workshop format may not be of maximum assistance to the arbitrators and that Workshop proposals must be supported by links/diffs or citations to the opening statements or Evidence page to be especially useful. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I left them both messages about that (before I saw this), but they seem to want to do this part first. I did recommend to BenBurch the evidence page, perhaps he will contribute there. I will likely provide little or no evidence, since I am not really involved, other then that I filed the request. I will let them provide the evidence against each other for me. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone directly to /Workshop myself, in cases where I was participating, but they were much more straightforward cases where many of the facts were undisputed and it was reasonable to give a diff or two right in the proposed findings where needed. In my mind, this case won't write easily in that format. Of course ultimately it's the parties' and participating editors' call. Newyorkbrad 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I would respectfully recommend reading the Evidence page first with all of its diffs, then the Workshop page. My Evidence page section bristles like a porcupine with diffs, and I plan to add more in the next couple of days. If either one (or both) of my initial motions happen to be denied, I'll have to expand and add a lot more diffs to the Evidence page. Tbeatty has also produced an Evidence page section that bristles with diffs.

Opposing parties' efforts are noteworthy in that they haven't devoted much time or effort to collecting such evidence, choosing instead to devote most of their energies to posting ridicule, combative arguments and proposals on the Workshop page. (Or perhaps there isn't much evidence for them to collect ...) Dino 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fensteren?

Where should this User:Fensteren info go? Ani Link Lots more on unblock L too. Thanks - FAAFA 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He is clearly a sock puppet of User:DeanHinnen Isn't he? At least I intend to so argue. --BenBurch 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU said that he isn't. But make your argument, sir. Then I'll make mine. Dino 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow if I had known the mess this would make...

...I would never have bothered filing any of those RFCUs. --BenBurch 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about User:DeanHinnen

Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen is presently on a 24 HR block for altering the meaning of user's comments in AN/I. So do not attribute silence as being consent. --BenBurch 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean knows my email. So if there's something pressing to say, he can mail it to me and I'll forward it on (but I filter, it better be pressing). Or he can mail it to any arbcom member, if it can't wait the 24 hour block out... ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He has mine too. And JzG's, and... Prodego ^talk 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He can also post on his talkpage and I (as the clerk for this case) will move it to the appropriate place. In any event, the block expired tomorrow morning. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance from an Admin with 'super powers'

Can one of you powerful admins delve into the dark recesses of this page's history :

Jim Robinson (Free Republic)

And tell me...

1) Did this page exist before 01/31/07 ?

2) If so, was the title 'Jim Robinson (Free Republic)', or if not, what was the title?

3) If so, and it was an article, could you post the text of its last edit - the date of that edit - and the editor's name?

Thanks in advance - FAAFA 08:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was created on Jan 31 as a redirect and has never been anything else. It is not linked from anywhere. Stop looking for bogeymen. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not looking for boogeymen. The boogeyman (who created that page) is real, and he's (and they) are out to get me! ;-) (let me get my out copy of Harry Potter - that'll scare em off!) ;-) - FAAFA 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment sought on recent major changes to AGF

I posted this on the talk page of User:Gmaxwell who I felt made possibly inappropriate and certainly drasti,c unilateral changes to the basic underpinnings of AGF without the community's input.

• I disagree with your changes to AGF HERE. As far as I can tell, this exception had been part of the guideline, in one form or another, for a very long time. I am involved in a RFAr involving charges a lying, misrepresentation, defamation, sockpuppetry, and the coercion of WMF under false color to edit to a particular POV, under implied or overt threats of legal action. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Workshop. This exception was a fundamental and important part of this guideline until 02/17 (and a 'defense' for some of my conduct) and it seems you removed it without any discussion. I hope that you will agree that removing a critical long-standing aspect of AGF without any discussion might have been hasty, and you will restore some or all of it - and take discussion of this major change to WP to Village Pump Policy, or wherever you think appropriate. Thanks in advance

The thoughts and comments from Admins involved with WP would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. FAAFA 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[comment redacted] - FAAFA

My non-admin comments on AGF edit above

I agree with Gmaxwell's edits. Unilateral judgements of when not to AGF are contrary to AGF itself. --Tbeatty 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just another note about User:DeanHinnen

He is on a 48 Hr block for talk page spamming. So slow the freight train down til he can board it? Thanks! --BenBurch 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, there are multiple ways in which he can still participate. Thatcher131 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just want to make sure that people know that he is operating with such a debility. --BenBurch 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That block was lifted about 45 minutes after it was imposed. --rogerd 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that. Good. --BenBurch 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A polite request for User:DeanHinnen

Please stop re-factoring all of your old comments to me to now be calling me "sir" in them. You don't need to call me "sir" and I find that your usage actually detracts from the civility of your statements. --BenBurch 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Diff; [1] --BenBurch 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Let's try to keep this readable. Some participants and readers might have difficulty reading, and have set their "Control Panel" settings on their computers to display large type. If you need to use six or seven (or more) colons to indent your post, people who are using large type will find it very difficult to read your post.

Where the exchange of ideas got to the point where seven colons were being used for indentation, I refactored the comment so that only two were used, and then stairstepped the following comments directly beneath it. That is the extent of my "tampering." I hope no one objects. I'm just trying to help those with impaired vision. Dino 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An external link I think is worth noting in regards to the APJ matter

Here is their posting on their site of their take on this matter; redacted link --BenBurch 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the ED precedent for attack sites apply here to APJ? This is at least somewhat worrysome. Georgewilliamherbert 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll redact the link as it is on their front page, anyway. --BenBurch 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another note about User:DeanHinnen

He is on a 24 Hr block for evidence removal. Just FYI. --BenBurch 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on POV

A senior Admin (Fred Bauer) whose user page sports this (below) as one of only his three userboxes:

Is commenting on THIS edit, and other similar trifles? And another Admin (Rogerd) has jumped to the defense of Free Republic and the Hinnen Brigade by suddenly becoming active on this RFAr - deleting evidence that indicts Hinnen - and editing the LAT v FR article?

Thank goodness partisanship, politics, and axe-grinding haven't come into play in this proceeding!

The laughs never stop! (I like the 'funny' laughs 'more' better though) ;-) FaAfA (yap) 09:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

File:Stalin3.jpg

This user has survived Stalinist excess from leftists.