Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet

message: Take a deep breath, and let's continue the discussion based on editing text.--Cberlet 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please join discussion at [[Talk:Lyndon LaRouche]] 

message: In response to Will Beback's outside view, I don't believe it is possible to have a one-person edit war, but I do believe that it is possible for one person to start one, and in this case I see a pattern. 
The COI policy clearly allows experts to edit articles in their field of specialty, but not to the point of self-promotion, or giving undue weight to their own opinions. I didn't call Cberlet a "single-person account" -- I quoted someone working at the COI noteboard, who did. 
Finally, I consider the accusation that this RFC is "not made with clean hands" to be a personal attack. Please address at least a few of your comments to the extensively documented policy violations of Cberlet.
One other point -- apparently Cberlet's mediation request was both filed and closed while I was on vacation. I came back to find a notice on my talk page with a link to a deleted page. I was around, however, for Cberlet's request for arbitration which preceded it. --Marvin Diode 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't consider starting an edit war to be substantially worse than continuing the revert battle. Also, regarding the expression "not made with clean hands" - I would suggest this was essentially reiterating that neither side was blameless. Addhoc 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does one start an edit war? By making an edit? Could MD please clarify what it was, specifically, that Cberlet did to single-shadedly start the war? Regarding the SPA accusation, does MD agree with the quote or not? If not, why add it here? Further, what policies has Cberlet violated? The BLP issue is not a clear violation, and Cberlet has been no more uncivil than the certifiers of this RfC (see below). Are the certifiers of this RfC asserting that Cberlet (and Dking) are the only ones who have made edits that might be termed "soapboxing"?    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never saw any editors add long, off-topic essays to talk pages extolling the virtues of LaRouche. However, both Dking and Cberlet added long, off-topic essays denouncing him. I consider this "soap-boxing." --Marvin Diode 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there was evidence that Cberlet or Dking have written "long, off-topic essays" denouncing LaRouche then that should have provided. The links that were provided only went to short paragraphs that appear to have been  relevant to the ongoing discussions. And yes, I have seen other editors engaging in similar behavior, albeit with a different focus.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but it's a bit difficult to discuss it now that one of Cberlet's pals has deleted the project page. --MaplePorter 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, is this a personal attack or a conspiracy theory of persecution by unseen forces?  I need to know in order to frame an appropriate courteous response.--Cberlet 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Will Beback's outside view

message: Should probably acknowledge that I was an informal mediator for a related dispute last year and the mediation wasn't successful. Addhoc 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure by Addhoc

message: Will seems to be saying that there is a lack of even-handedness in this filing. This is a topic that I am happy to address, and in fact, over the past months, I have left a series of messages on this topic at Will Beback's talk page.
First of all, I often visit pages that are listed on the article RFC board, and I have seen a lot of disputes, although I think the ones at the LaRouche articles are the worst. I think that the pro-LaRouche editors have had their share of lapses of civility, and I might have also launched a RFC on User:NathanDW, were it not for the fact that he was recently banned by SlimVirgin. I think that an RFC would have been a far more appropriate response than a sudden banning. The same goes for User:Don't lose that number. However, since those two users are banned, it makes little sense to discuss their conduct in an RFC about somebody else -- it appears to be a diversion from the topic at hand.
Looking at the histories of the LaRouche articles and the LaRouche 2 arbcom case, it looks to me like Will Beback and SlimVirgin act as "enablers" for Cberlet and Dking, apologizing for their behavior, changing the subject to the behavior of their factional opponents, and also banning their factional opponents. I notice that at Lyndon LaRouche, both Cberlet and Dking asked, on the talk page and in an edit summary, that NathanDW be banned, apparently with the expectation that their wishes would be granted. Note that at WP:CIVIL, "calling for blocks or bans" is considered one of the more serious violations of civility.
So, I have filed this RFC so that Cberlet's conduct may be addressed. He will have the full opportunity to respond, which is certainly more than NathanDW and "Dont lose that number" got. --Marvin Diode 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the list above to say that there appears to be hypocrisy, or a double standard, in this complaint. The remarks posted above weren't made by NathanDW or Don't lose that number, they were made by Marvin Diode and MaplePorter, the certifiers of this RfC. So if discussing NathDW and DLTN is a distraction, then why are you mentioning them? You mention "even-handedness" - can you point to any occasion in which you commented on the "lapses of civility" by the "pro-LaRouche editors"?  Who are these "pro-LaRouche editors" that are referred to? I can't recall any editor self-identifying as such, and many accounts that edit LaRouche articles have made elaborate explanations of their disinterest. If NathanDW and DLTN are considered "pro-LaRouche", then why wouldn't we also consider the certifiers of this RfC to be "pro-LaRouche" as well? Lastly, how many times, including this RfC, have Cberlet and Dking been told to stop editing? I'm not going to count them up, but it appears to be a common occurence, at least by a small number of accounts.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made comments on "lapses of civility" that were directed at all the editors, not one particular side of the disputes. Here is one such example. The bone that I attempted to pick with you in the past is that you were leaving warnings on the talk pages of NathanDW and others, but not Cberlet's talk page. As far as "pro-LaRouche editors" are concerned, no one that I can recall has identified himself as a "pro-LaRouche editor," but I can't think of one editor who disagreed with Cberlet on these articles who has not been labeled by Cberlet as a "pro-LaRouche editor." In his response to this RFC, Cberlet charges that I edit Wikipedia primarily to defend LaRouche. This appears to be some sort of tactic. --Marvin Diode 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've made also made general calls for civility too so there's no cause for complaint about my lack of even-handedness. Who were you referring to when you said that "pro-LaRouche editors have had their share of lapses of civility"? This RfC charges that Cberlet edits Wikipedia mostly to attack LaRouche. Why isn't reasonable for Cberlet to make a similar claim about the certifiers of this RfC? If it's poor form to call some editors "pro-LaRouche" then why isn't poor form to say that some editors have an "axe to grind", or say they have an "obessive hatred of LaRouche"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I refer to "King," I speak of Dennis King, the public person. When I want to refer to the Wikipedia editor, I'll use his user name, Dking. It isn't that hard to keep these things straight. If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether Dennis King has an "obsessive hatred of LaRouche," I invite you to have a look at his web site. --MaplePorter 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's appropriate to differentiate those two identities. However remember that WP:BLP applies when referring to "Dennis King", so making unsourced defamatory remarks is inappropriate. Back tto the question at hand - you certified this RfC with a complaint about Cberlet's incivility. I've listed above instances where you've been equally, if not more, uncivil than Cberlet. You complain that he pushes a POV, yet your own edits appear very one-sided. Is it right to complain about an editor for behavior so similar to one's own?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Even-handedness

message: I would like to point out a possible error in your opinion. By your reasoning on records, Chip is more important than Marvin. Do we really want to promote that inequal view? Dagomar 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was that Cberlet (and Dking) are "COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest."  The two certifiers of this RfC have edit histories which indicate that they appear to have one primary purpose on Wikipedia. My point is that they are blaming Cberlet for behavior that they engage in as much or more as Cberlet.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, i was half asleep when i got online last night. Where is the mediation, just out of curiosity? Dagomar 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the mediation was rejected, the page was deleted by the mediation committee.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inequal view

message: I see your point, although I don't think it is simply a question of these writers agitating to have their views included in Wikipedia articles. It is also a question of them agitating to remove opposing views, so that their POV dominates the articles. --Marvin Diode 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is removing "opposing viewpoints" a behavior that is exclusive to Cberlet? Have the certifiers of this RfC never removed information from an article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to outside View by Dagomar

message: I'm not certain which individual added this page to the approved section, because the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute on the part of those certifying this RfC remains highly lacking, namely: limited to a warning template and on the part of one and a rather obscure 'you are violating almost all the rules in the book' comment from the other. I'll give these two users 24-48 hours to establish that more was done on their part to resolve the dispute prior to filing this RfC. If they fail to do so, it will be deleted and delisted. Thx. El_C 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your examination of the evidence was superficial. You appear to have missed one of the basic messages in the first section. However, I have added more material. I also copied, from another section, Cberlet's responses to messages left on his talk page, which in each case was a deletion of the message, accompanied by an un-civil edit summary. This was not an encouraging response. Also, I would like to link to the proposed mediation, which as I noted earlier I agreed to join, but the mediation failed and has been deleted. Finally, in the event that you are still not satisfied, I think that your threat to delete this RFC after it has been properly certified is improper and partisan -- you have been reprimanded in the past for inappropriate use of administrative tools.. --MaplePorter 12:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve the dispute on your part, and as such, it is likely that this RfC shall be deleted and delisted. El_C 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I double checked the new additions and fail to see how these efforts could, even remotely, be considered sufficient. As such, I have deleted and delisted this RfC. El_C 08:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for the best. The claimed policy violations didn't hold up to scrutiny anyway. Perhaps you could review Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking as well. It's a duplicate of this RfC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute lacking

message: Will, you have brought up an important point about clean hands. But can we now look at Cberlet's conduct, which was the point of this RfC? After it concludes an RfC on the initiators may be in order, but for now lets take the opportunity. Dagomar 06:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we can't look at Cberlet's conduct, because he has friends in high places. --MaplePorter 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the irony in the implication that there is a Wiki admin conspiracy, how about the four of us (complainants and targets) joining in a mediation?  I think it is a good idea to settle some questions about editing on the LaRouche-related pages. I already proposed this, and think it is a far better plan than RFC's that are basically not proper becasue they are really extensions of edit disputes.--Cberlet 15:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include Will Beback, who has been very much involved. --Marvin Diode 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not.--Cberlet 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to participate in any process which resolves disputes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is generous of Will Beback to say this, but I feel an obligation to point out that for months Will Beback has tried very hard to be a fair admin and seek to build consensus on hotly contested pages involving Lyndon LaRouche.--Cberlet 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has been your ally in the disputes; he has also tried (successfully, I might add) to block discussion of policy violations by yourself and Dking. On the other hand, he made no protest at all when NathanDW and DLTN were banned by SlimVirgin. DLTN in particular put in many hours of patient work on "United States vs. LaRouche," including digging up references requested by his opponents. He was an asset to Wikipedia and he was banned with no opportunity to defend himself. I am looking in vain for fairness here. --MaplePorter 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments like these are not good ways of resolving disputes. I am no one's "ally". I never sought to block discussion - just the opposite. My comments and questions are plain to see on this very page. I wrote numerous notes to DLTN and NathanDW about their personal attacks and disruption, and I think that their blocking was justified. However this isn't about those two editors. Rather than re-hashing the past let's try to pinpoint what content matters are in dispute and focus on finding common ground.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get to the root? 

message: :Who would be an acceptable moderator of a mediation? Dagomar 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should first try going back to editing with a RFC on specific articles.--Cberlet 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then which articles? Dagomar 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Lyndon LaRouche and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement?--Cberlet 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually now that i think about it, we may wish to include any and all LaRouche articles. Otherwise this could crop up elsewhere. Dagomar 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation/Discussion

message: To All Interested Parties;
A RfC, has been initiated this day on all LaRouche articles. 
Dagomar 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of RfC (LaRouche, Et Al) 

message: The above article RFC was delisted because it was transformed from an article comment into an RFC on two editors, which had already been delisted.--Cberlet 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC delisted 

message: Take a deep breath, and let's continue the discussion based on editing text.--Cberlet 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please join discussion at [[Talk:Lyndon LaRouche]]