Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

message: ==== Statement by Picaroon ====
I endorse Prodego's words. Although this may seem like a content dispute, it goes far beyond that. With BenBurch and FAAFA on one side and Bryan and his multitudinous sockpuppets on the other (I make no secret of the fact that I think DeanHinnen is Bryan's sockpuppet, regardless of the fact that he's tricked some into believing him a meatpuppet instead) this  war has been going on since at least November. The article is a mess, Foundation personnel have become involved, and at least one external (non-Wikimedia) party has been drawn in. The parties are downright hostile to eachother, and the pots and kettles are both the color of coal; I'd go so far as to class one of them as one Wikipedia's top most disruptive not-yet-banned users.
The arbcom needs to step in to (a) determine if bans are needed for the other disputants, (b) determine if Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine evading his community ban, and (c) ratify Bryan's community ban. Article probation would be almost an after-thought, but it is probably a good idea too. Among the policies violated at one time or another by the aforementioned parties are WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, and WP:NPA. Picaroon 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by non-parties

message: I endorse Prodego's words. Although this may seem like a content dispute, it goes far beyond that. With BenBurch and FAAFA on one side and Bryan and his multitudinous sockpuppets on the other (I make no secret of the fact that I think DeanHinnen is Bryan's sockpuppet, regardless of the fact that he's tricked some into believing him a meatpuppet instead) this  war has been going on since at least November. The article is a mess, Foundation personnel have become involved, and at least one external (non-Wikimedia) party has been drawn in. The parties are downright hostile to eachother, and the pots and kettles are both the color of coal; I'd go so far as to class one of them as one Wikipedia's top most disruptive not-yet-banned users.
The arbcom needs to step in to (a) determine if bans are needed for the other disputants, (b) determine if Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine evading his community ban, and (c) ratify Bryan's community ban. Article probation would be almost an after-thought, but it is probably a good idea too. Among the policies violated at one time or another by the aforementioned parties are WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, and WP:NPA. Picaroon 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Picaroon 

message: I heartily support arbitration of this complicated mess.  Not long ago I proposed initiating this request myself.  Despite improvements in the article, the surrounding dispute is troubling - so much so that I declined Ben Burch's request to investigate it.  One of the elements the committee could help resolve that I cannot is the appropriate scope of action by WikiMedia Foundation employees: one removed a referenced statement from the article along with the reference without declaring the edit to be an office action.  I consider it likely that disputants at this page had contacted that employee to claim the citation was a hoax.  The dispute itself, which defies all effort at resolution, appears to have originated at a different website.  This exceeds my abilities as an independent gumshoe.  If I did get to the bottom of things I wouldn't be able to fix the problems.  Maybe the Committee can. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by peripherally involved [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: I myself am extremely curious to know who exactly was the source of the call to the Wikimedia foundation. If it was not in fact Mr. Walker, or his representative, then I think we deserve to know that somebody has been manipulating the system in a possibly illegal way to influence article content. - Merzbow 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by peripherally involved [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 

message: This is a case ArbCom has to accept. At one stage around a fortnight ago, there was seven threads on AN/ANI, most retaliatory to other threads, by these four users.
If that wasn't bad enough, the absolute plethora of retalation in the form of Checkuser requests sums it up nicely.
*Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DeanHinnen 
*Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BenBurch
*Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine
The constant harrasment by both parties against one another via both AN(I) and RFCU is staggering. I urge ArbCom to accept this, possibly even in a speedily manner. Daniel.Bryant 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by frustrated Daniel.Bryant 

message: Running the risk of rehashing all the above arguments by bystander editors, I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Throughout the past few months, this dispute has turned from a simple conflict into a full-fledged clash of philosophies, complete with spurious accusations, biting incivility, retaliatory complaints, and general disturbance of the community at large. Pleas for restraint by many users on the various noticeboards and similar channels of discussion towards these three (or four) seem to be of no avail, as they seem bent on gaining the upper hand in the dispute, inappropriateness of mode(s) notwithstanding. WP:ANI threads regarding this topic have become more like exasperating eyesores than incident reports as time passed, with the same arguments recycled and regurgitated again and again, with similar results (in other words, nothing). As the three or four seem to be unable to stop, calm down, and withdraw themselves away from this topic, and the community has been constantly rebuffed in its attempts to mediate the dispute, only ArbCom can bring this tragic episode to an end once and for all. --210physicq (c) 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by peripherally involved [[User:Physicq210|Physicq210]] 

message: We've tried telling them to leave each other alone, we've tried telling them not to edit the article, we've tried speedily closing their vexatious processes, and they carry on.  It's an off-Wiki fight brought to Wikipedia.  BryanFromPalatine was the worst offender, and DeanHinnen has already posted by proxy on his behalf into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch.  We also have the deleted BenBurch, another attempt at vexatious process.  
All three have emailed me off list (and presumably others as well).  BenBurch and FAAFA have been less overt about soliciting actions against Hinnen than vice-versa, and less assertive, cf. "there is an RfC, can you help" versus "foo is edit-warring".  I am also bound to point out that BenBurch's response to being told to butt out is generally "sorry, will do" (see above and the recent thread on WP:ANI , whereas Hinnen's is reliably to start arguing how the problem is actually the other two.  This may simply reflect the fact that FAAFA and BenBurch have been around a bit longer and know that "but it was him!" does not work well with the parent of two pre-teen sons; I have heard it all before.
What follows is strictly opinion: BenBurch and FAAFA seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back, but this may be because in general they have the upper hand. One thing's for sure: it's not going to end without enforceable sanctions.  DeanHinnen is not quite right that we are likely to block all three, since the other two seem to have some history of non-disruptive edits, whereas all of the Hinnen brothers' edits appear to be to political subjects and to reflect their highly partisan views (although again neither side is innocent of this).
DeanHinnen's relentless Wikilawyering and pursuit of his vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA is a large part of the problem.  It is clear that he has made it his business to hound them off the project one way or another.  Most of his statement above shows precisely this agenda: he wants rid of them because he hates their edits to Free Republic, a site to which he has a known and significant connection.  I see absolutely no evidence at any point that Hinnen is prepared to work for compromise, only towards getting rid of BenBurch and FAAFA.  They, in their turn, gleefully provoked Bryan into self-destruction (in which he proved a willing participant) and seem to be looking forward to doing the same with Dean.
Ben's statement above is representative of his tone in my dealings with him.  In fact, all three are representative: Ben is saying he'll leave well alone, FAAFA describes the dispute showing Hinnen in a bad light, and Hinnen asserts that it's everybody else's fault while continuing to beat the long-dead horse of the sockpuppet case. Cards on the table: I don't really believe him either. A brand new user, at the same IP, piling into the same disputes with the same viewpoint and the same agenda, with zero overlap, and where the supposed brother is a known sockpuppeteer?  Maybe it is a different person, but for all the difference we can see it might as well not be.
Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:JzG]] 

message: FAAFA has a long history of tendentious editing, personal attacks and general disruption.  He has recently paired up with User:BenBurch and hounded other editors off articles.  DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine are recent newcomers who have been relentessly hounded by BenBurch and FAAFA.  BryanFromPalatine acted inappropriately by using sockpuppets.  The others have tag teamed to bully the newcomer and bait him. I certified the first RfC because the focus of FAAFA and BenBurch was on trying to stop BryanFromPalatine and later DeanHinnens voice be heard about complaints they had about editing practices of the two tendentious editors.  They have a valid complaint.  There are other editors who have interacted with these two that can provide evidence.  FAAFA (formerly User:NBGPWS) has a long history of edit warring and POV pushing.  BenBurch has a long history of conflict but also generally adheres to the rules.
From what I've seen, the following actions would improve the project but this needs to come from arbcom and I urge you to accept the case.  
User:BenBurch is on revert parole for political articles and biographies for 1 year.
User:NBGPWS/FAAFA is banned from political articles and biographies.
User:DeanHinnen is banned from editng Free Republic.   
--Tbeatty 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[USer:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 

message: I've been watching the theatrics since sometime in December, and until now have resisted involvement.  Tbeatty has given a concise version of events, but I think he has downplayed the amount of disruptive behavior that has occured over the last few months.  Admins have shown considerable restraint towards at least one user (with two usernames), having only blocked him a handful of times for incivility, personal attacks, and violating WP:3RR.  I support an ArbCom review of all the editors' conduct -- people still need to be reminded of standards of conduct we expect of our editors.  /Blaxthos 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsement of Tbeatty's comments by Uninvolved Observer [[User:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] 

message: My only involvement in this case has been one comment at WP:AN/I#Proposed community ban, and I was not aware of the dispute until the start of that thread. However, I would like to join with many of the users above in urging the ArbCom to accept this case. From reading the previous AN/I discussions, it seems clear that they will not stop pursuing vexatious processes against one another until official action is taken.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by peripherally involved [[User:Grand Slam 7]] 

message: I am the person who unblocked DeanHinnen after discussion on unblock-en-l.  These discussions are public.  I stand by my statements that Dean was very civil in his discussions on unblock-en-l.  I make no claim as to Dean's civility or that of the other involved members on the Wikipedia itself.  We unblocked Dean because of a good-faith assumption that the evidence he presented lead reasonably to the assumption that he is the brother of BryanFromPalistine.  This is not certain but it seemed to be appropriate to come to this conclusion.  unblock-en-l investigates only whether to unblock someone and specifically makes no attempt to resolve conflicts such as this.  Additionally, we are a very small subset of administrators and so do not reflect Wikipedia consensus or even admin consensus generally.  I would not consider it inappropriate for my unblock to be overturned if that is the conclusion of this arbitration.  I state for the record that my opinion is that this conflict will not be resolved without arbitration, that this is not a simple content dispute, and that the conflict has escalated to a significant and annoying level.  --Yamla 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Yamla]] 

message: I was also involved in the unblock discussions on unblock-en-l and advocated that Dean be unblocked (based on the narrow case presented that he was not a sockpuppet, which was demonstrated to my satisfaction, including by emails to and from me via a work address). Yamla has it just right, he was civil there, unfailingly so, but our decision was a narrow one, not a overall vindication of anything. Dean has, in my view, in some places, acted like he was vindicated in everything because we decided that it was likely he was not a sockpuppet. Subsequent to the unblock I was among the people that warned, counseled, and advised Dean, , ,
,
... multiple times, that he needed to change his approach. It was my intent to have no further involvement, but I have had some talk page traffic advocating and restating that claim is the last, and some email correspondence from Dean, FAAFA and others (which I will not share publicly without permission, but will make available to ArbCom members on request, but it was garden variety advocacy that I get involved, or advocacy of the rightness or wrongness of the position of various other participants). I had hoped that this matter was not going to come to ArbCom, that community efforts, up to and including the comprehensive set of restrictions referenced by JzG and others, would suffice, and I was intending to advocate that the case be rejected, and the community deal with this. I'm still hopeful that perhaps that would work, and since they seem to be running concurrently, perhaps a go slow approach is called for here, the community may yet deal with this... ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Lar]] 

message: I offered and attempted to act as an informal mediator during December 2006 (See Talk:Free_Republic/Archive4#Informal_mediation.) We had a good start and an initial agreement from involved editors to improve  a Talk:Free_Republic/Archive5#Compromise_version, but very quickly it degenerated into a battleground in which everything was fair game, including abusive sockpuppetry, focus on editors viewpoints rather than the improvement of the article, and a total mess of intrigues and attempts to game the system. ArbCom intervention to assess editors' behavior would be most beneficial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Jossi]] 

message: I have not been involved in any way with the Free Republic article, so my comments only pertain to the behavior of the parties regarding the Peter Roskam article.  While BenBurch and FAAFA have been too quick to goad and be goaded, nothing they have done there has been anything requiring ArbCom intervention.  Perhaps a personal attack/civility parole at best.  I'm much more troubled by DeanHinnen's behavior.  While his stated desire to improve articles is likely sincere, he is almost completely unwilling or unable to believe that those on the other end of the political spectrum, and this manifests itself in a stream of attacks and snide remarks about alleged bias, agendas, etc.  The only instance of an exception to this is his praise today of Propol, who was one of the many editors dismissed by DH as driven by a biased agenda. This praise, while a sign of DH's willingness to improve and work with others, also illustrates what a problem he is.  Propol or any other editor shouldn't have had to earn his way into DH's good graces and thus be freed from DH's baseless accusations, such civil treatment should be given towards all editors.  DH's behavior has improved over the last few days; he has made positive contributions and is presently acting in a congenial manner. But I am concerned that this behavior will last only as long as things are going well or he is getting his way.  Only a few days prior he was edit warring over the issue of a minor ammendment to a minor bill, posting vandalism warnings and threats on the user pages of those he was warring with.  His minor positive contributions are outweighed by the frustration he has caused other users. I suggest the mentorship of an established user and/or a strong parole or prohbition against attacks and accusations regarding the motives of other editors. Gamaliel 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Gamaliel]] 

message: It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
This remedy, passed on the Free Republic RfArb, unfortunately has lacked teeth, and the page has had to be protected for numerous edit wars between Eschoir (who has a conflict of interest after being involved in legal action initated by Free Republic) and several accounts, largely believed to be sock or meat puppets of community banned (and ArbCom endorsed Ban) User:BryanFromPalatine. See this edit for evidence submitted by :Lawrence Cohen as a report requested by CheckUser User:Lar. I'd like to formally request that the Arbitration Committee modify the above sanction in the following way.
;Proposed sanction
It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any uninvolved administrator. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 

message: ;Proposed sanction 2.1:
The standard article probation wording seems to have been developed after the Free Republic case. It would be:
:Free Republic is placed on article probation.  Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from Free Republic and related articles or project pages.  Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.
Additionally, I support SirFozzie's request for better enforcement.   Jehochman  Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 

message: (In response to Jehochman 2.1):
Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] 

message: (In response to Proposed Motion):
I support all except this quibble
editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, 
I may be wrong or just presumptuous, but COI is a term of art, with a particular definition meant to describe a factual state.  Using language such as 'may reasonably be percieved as having a COI' would would equate opinion with fact.  A 'reasonable' standard is less stringent than a 'preponderance' standard, and certainly not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Recast the sentence thus:
"Editors who are or may reasonably be perceived as being pregnant . . ."
and see how absurd that standard is.
"All editors" means all editors.  The gloss on SPAs and COIs is unnecessary, and potentially harmful, and I urge thoughtful reflection before adoption of such language.Eschoir (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Eschoir|Eschoir]] 

message: Eschoir
# All editors are strongly urged to do this. (Because it's a communal norm.) 
# Users who have a focus on that article specifically, and therefore may draw concern as to their neutrality from others (whether accurate or not), and also editors who actually in the real world do have a conflict of interest, and also editors who may not have a conflict of interest but where it is likely given their edits that a reasonable person may feel concern due to the perceptions arising from those edits, are being particularly reminded to do so, since they are considered more likely to run into such issues (due to prior disruption there) and therefore should take especial care to avoid doing so.
I have no problem with any of those statements. The issue is, can the community use them to deal with the issue. My feeling is they can. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion