Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Proposed decision

message: Arbitrators participating in this case:
*Charles Matthews
*Flcelloguy
*FloNight
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Jpgordon (recused)
*Kirill Lokshin
*Matthew Brown (Morven)
*Paul August
*SimonP
*UninvitedCompany
There are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so the majority is 6. (Blngyuen is away; Raul 654 is inactive; Mackensen, appointed after the case was accepted, is considered not to be participating unless he states otherwise.) Updated by Newyorkbrad, 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators

message: We've not seen much of Eschoir, and a restriction at this stage looks a bit premature, but I see no problem with his being cautioned or advised to seek mentorship to avoid the problems inherent in Internet disputants coming to Wikipedia.  Past experience indicates that most will either explode rapidly and be banned, or learn and be acceptable contributors.  Long-term disruption would justify an ArbCom restriction, but he's only been here a few days. Not that I care overmuch, since he's bringing his fight here I confidently expect him to go out in a blaze of disruptive glory when he finds his edits challenged, but shouldn't we at least give him a chance? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschoir 

message: The findings put forth in the proposed decision are inaccurate,  biased in that they concentrate on the negative and don't accurately document any good faith efforts such as mediation, and POV.  They either intentionally or inadvertently omit key facts and studied opinions, such as:
1]  The crucial and important statement by Admin Jossi who was highly involved with all the editors on a daily basis for a period of several weeks during mediation. He commented on the good faith efforts of the involved editors - efforts which were derailed by "abusive sockpuppetry" from The Hinnens. Statement by Jossi
2] This cursory finding also ignores the fact that there was a compromise version which was written collaboratively with help from Admin Jossi, arrived at by consensus, and okayed by Admin Jossi Compromise Version. This version contained considerable critical material, more than now, and sources deemed RS V at the time that are now being referred to as unreliable and partisan. Note my own comments on the compromise version, as well : "Still way too much OR, unsubstantiated FR claims, and links to FR." (bolding in my orginal comments) 
3] The sock puppet account persona using the name 'DeanHinnen' has now been proven to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Bryan Hinnen. -link- Ben Burch and I (among others) were prescient enough to know this within a few days of this account 'joining', due to our weeks of dealing with Bryan's sockpuppets. Any and all lapses of NPA and CIVIL on my part against 'DeanHinnen' must be viewed in light of the fact that 'DeanHinnen' was merely another of Bryan Hinnens 6+ RFCU confirmed sock puppets, and WP:AGF actually allowed suspension of GF up until 2/17/07. AGF of 2/16/07 included; "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Documented at: diff 2/17 - FaAfA (yap) 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is when things get heated up that courtesy is most important.  Fred Bauder 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't your stated opinion when MONGO was rude to ED trolls, and people who disagreed with him over the events of 9/11. Please address points 1 and 2. Thanks - Free FaAfA ! (yap) 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rude to the ED "trolls"...I thought it was the other way around...can you show me anywhere that Dean or anyone else has accused you of being a pedophile, as the "ED trolls" accused me? Thanks.--MONGO 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO - as distasteful as I found that ED article, it WAS satire, and ArbCom ruled it as such 5-0. "(ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Wikipedia. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes." - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...I saw the humor in it...haha. As far as the wording in that particular finding, I thought that was the funniest part of it all. Besides, it's not like they limited their attacks to their website, and nothing done by Dean or anyone else against you is anywhere remotely comparable to what I endured.--MONGO 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. CWC(talk) 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't accept FAAFA's "proof" that he has posted on his own web site.  How are we to be sure that this "proof" wasn't manufactured?  --rogerd 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's his website?  Can we get a checkuser on ?  --Tbeatty 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The writing style certainly seems familiar. Ironic title for the piece too. - Crockspot 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I wrote as well as Gene! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do not believe that FAAFA is in any way associated with APJ.  Though certainly they have similar attitudes towards Dean Hinnen.  Honestly, it is hard for ME not to treat him in just that manner because I hate cheaters and I see sock ban evasion as cheating.  --BenBurch 15:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was looking at more of the nuances of speech of one of the writers there, rather than any specific attitude he holds. - Crockspot 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Ben on this.  I really don't think that FAAFA & APJ are related.  Having said this, Im not persuaded that the "proof" really rises to the level of proof.  While it is certainly plausable, it could easily be manufactured (as Rogerd suggests) and it appears that APJ(the website) is quite a partisian source. Dman727 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case, it is proof that we do not need to see as there is ample reason to believe there is a meat puppet relationship.  --BenBurch 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke Eschoir 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the proposed decision 

message: Undid revision by NewYorkBrad - evidence of Beatty's hounding, harassment, and paranoia are important to this proceeding FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
These Dovetail nicely.
FAAFA
*13:24, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (replaced ref 1, non rs v blog with The Age) (top) 
*13:20, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (→The Flight 93 National Memorial - added RCP and LGF - zombie credits them in his article as raising the issue first) 
*13:11, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (added pro israel, anti abortion) 
*13:03, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern) (top) 
*12:41, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (rewrote intro to reflect reality. his most current report is on an art gallery opening!) 
*12:23, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern)
 
apj
*12:37, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed) (top) 
*12:35, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed) 
*12:31, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Evidence presented by American Politics Journal) 
*12:28, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Regarding Dean Hinnen) 
::: [Heck, I wasn't even aware of the WP article on Zombietime (which FAFAA must have been posting to after breakfast while I was leaving for or out to lunch). Useful stuff. Thanks for the heads-up, Tbeatty! -- Apj-us-nyc 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow TB ! We're both online at the same time ! Maybe you should post your suspicions to the Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard ! LOL ! Hey Beatty - you know how y'all fear the Trilateral Commission ? APJ + FaAfA might actually be the Bicoastal Commission  (dues paying members of the NWO and the nefarious evil-doers secretly creating those dastardly chemtrails that you see and fear all the time - We use our private fleet of Black helicopters)! Thicker foil is recommended for your hat TB! LOL ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I have actually tried to AVOID posting when you do, FAAFA, for fear that somebody would make just this sort of allegation that I was you somehow.  People post at about the same times because we almost all rise near sunrise and sleep at night.  Sheesh.  --BenBurch 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak for yourself! The only time I see sunrise or anything close is if I've stayed up all night! I'm a degenerate inveterate night owl! ;-) FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beatty's now claiming I'm in NYC! BWAAHH! Shot down by my black helicopter! LOL ! (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though !FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
Once again I am constrained to observe that this thread does not seem likely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey - I consider myself lucky Beatty didn't accuse me of killing lots of innocent people who dare to oppose me, like he wrote that Bill Clinton did ! LOL ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made no such accusation and your conduct and mischaracterization is the reason we are here today.  --Tbeatty 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You both need to drop this.  --BenBurch 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SirFozzie 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried dropping it and was reverted.  You only have to look at the page history to see how many edits I have made.  But I'm done with this thread.  --Tbeatty 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Translation: The time zone distance! It buuuurns! It buuuuurns!] -- Apj-us-nyc 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The IP addresses Ben and FAFFA sent me emails from are different, and are not located in the same area. I hope you guys don't mind me saying that, but it seems it can't hurt, and will help. I followed the 'checkuser' method of replying. Prodego talk 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to you saying that whatsoever.  --BenBurch 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... Prodego..... I believe that Tbeatty was suspicious and paranoid that APJ and I were sockpuppets of each other, not  Ben and I. I hope TB will be kind enough to explain the difference between contrails and chemtrails to me - I always get the two confused, and I think he's an expert on the subject! FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well contrails are condensed water produced by jet engines, and chemtrails are trails of chemicals dropped by aircraft. I am telling you, since you are interested, and I know that you wouldn't make any personal attacks. Especially considering I have already warned you twice. I am addressing Ben's message about not editing at the same time as you, because of fear of being called a sock. Prodego talk 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Posting Times for apj 

message: After Ideogram and I slightly modified the wording of FoF 4 from "behavior" to "misbehavior" as the finding should reflect, we were reverted by Newyorkbrad with the edit summary, "revert: non-arbitrators may not edit the proposed decision page (you may comment on the talk page or the workshop)." While this is true in most cases, I believe that there is an exception to this case, as stated explicitly on WP:AC/C that non-arbitrators and non-clerks are allowed to edit this page if said edits fall under "except for minor edits like typos and such" clause. I wish for clarification and reinstatement of the reverted edits. —210physicq (c) 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I missed this comment when it was added or I would have responded earlier. My concern was that this change, although obviously not critical to the outcome of the decision, could arguably be considered substantive. If you still think the change should be made, an arbitrator may notice this thread, or you can leave a talkpage note for the arbitrator who drafted the decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An arbitrator has now made the change, which of course is fine. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion by Newyorkbrad 

message: I sent this to Fred:
Fred - I've been reading the Inshanee RFAr Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop, and once again I am stunned by the disparity in how the lapses of WP CIVIL, NPA, and (disruption) of the participants in that RFAr, and my case are being considered.
There is just no way that my conduct (especially in dealing with confirmed sock puppets) deserves a one year block.
My proposed remedies are :
1) (preferred) 
a) Banned from Free Republic article (and DU if you so choose) (tied to article probation)<BR>
b) 30 day ban from all political articles ( I have been working more on Mexico and music articles, so I could still edit these and add valuable premium content to Wiki - see Chacala)<BR>
c) No site ban<BR>
d) 1 year civility parole
2) second choice
a) Banned from Free Republic article (and DU if you so choose) (tied to article probation)<BR>
b) 30 day ban from all political articles <BR>
c) 10 day (up to a max of 30 day) site ban<BR>
d) Indefinite civility parole
I urge you to consider these realistic (in proportion to my conduct) remedies - withdraw your overly harsh one year ban - or to propose one of them as an alternative to the overly punative one year ban.
I also ask that even if you don't agree with my proposed remedies that you add them for others to vote and comment on. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposed remedies 

message: Now that there are a majority of votes for most items, does the proceeding close or do we wait for the other non-recused arbiters to weigh in?  --BenBurch 19:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting normally continues until all proposals have received attention from a majority of arbitrators. When an arbitrator believes the decision is ready to be finalized, he or she makes a "motion to close" in the very bottom section. When that motion is enacted, the case is formally closed, the clerk gives notice, and the remedies take effect. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for more details. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite helpful.  Thanks! --BenBurch 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process question. 

message: Note to the arbitrators, you may wish to modify or augment the citation of Wikipedia:Attribution in the proposed decision by additionally or instead citing to the predecessor policies (which also were the ones in effect at the time of the underlying dispute). See generally Wikipedia talk:Attribution#This merger is a really bad idea (comment by Jimbo Wales. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] 

message: I want to make sure this isn't missed as being buried in the previous section. .   There are more but I think this illustrates the point.  They aren't among the incivilities currently listed on the proposal page.  I am not sure why the punishment should be less when the incivility has gotten worse. --Tbeatty 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why .... Look who's here ! Jinx. Another of my provokers. diff Sorry, but you need to ask Tbeatty to explain  the message that pic conveys and the "7 - 0" if you really don't 'get it', which I doubt is the case. He deleted it as soon as I brought it to Admin attention. That should buy you a clue. - FaAfA Aloha 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm proably not as smart as I could be, but I didnt associate the train to being a metaphor for FAAFA until it was brought up on this page.  It proably is taunting but its a pretty mild form.  Nonetheless, I offer FAAFA a piece of advice that I tell my kids and I have to tell myself occasionally..."You cant control other people...you only control how YOU react to them". I mean that with sincerity as I think it applies to most of what this case is about. Dman727 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great advice. That should be one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. - Crockspot 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why, look at that. The pot calls the kettle black. Jinxmchue 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FAAFA's responses at this section say it all: a consistently heated tone that personalizes disputes is incompatible with encyclopedic collaboration.  I have advised FAAFA to conduct discussions in a calmer manner, which has often distracted serious attention from the factual merits of this editor's presentations.  An editor who cannot follow that advice now while the Committee's attention is focused is unlikely to follow it at any time in the near future.  FAAFA could appeal the ban after several months or wait it out and return to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He'll sockpuppet first. Jinxmchue 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In light of new proposal