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)
- 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)
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)
...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)
- He has mine too. And JzG's, and...
Prodego
talk
00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can one of you powerful admins delve into the dark recesses of this page's history :
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
- Dean was unblocked on the basis that he promised not to edit ArbCom pages at all, so I imagine this ends his input here unless he emails a clerk to provide comments. -- BenBurch 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As always, you have a vivid imagination. That promise was made earlier in the day to admins Newyorkbrad and Thatcher131, due to the constant escalations of sniping, trolling and posting of my family's personal information. It addressed the Evidence and Workshop pages. I hope that this sniping and trolling will stop now. Dino 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
|
- Bauder is on the Arbitration Committee. That is why he is here, since he will be voting on the decision. Prodego talk 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:Fred Bauder is the first Arbitration member of the 10 to weigh in on the Workshop. 5 votes are needed to enact his proposals which will be moved to the Abritrator only page once they reach consensus and have comments. -- Tbeatty 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand he's on the commitee, Prodego. IMO he should recuse. That userbox is partisan, POV, political, and an attack on the left. Anyone who has only three useboxes and chooses one of them to attack (insult, malign, impugne) 50% of ther population must have some pretty strong feelings. What's ironic is that many of the diffs he picked to show my 'misconduct' are less partisan and insulting that his own userbox. - FaAfA (yap) 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that "Stalinists excesses" applies to 50% of the leftists, let alone the population. Nor would I assume that Fred has directed that comment at 50% of the population or anyone in particular. I suspect he has experience with a very small subset of extremists. It may even be a personal experience such as one might experience as a survivor of the Gulag or Holocaust. Also, userboxes aside, Fred wears his Wikipeida hat while on Wikipedia. There is no reason to believe that his personal opinion on anything would impair his ability to render a judgement on what's best for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground and this arbitration case isn't about Left or Right. it's about what's best for the encyclopedia. -- Tbeatty 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This arbcon really isnt about politics. The arbcon is not going to decide if the left or right is correct. Clearly the parties may involved (faafa, deanhinnen, benburch) THINK its about politics, but that belief and the resulting behavior is what brought them here. This arbcon is about behavior. Dman727 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I trust that, even if he had a "I hate FairnessAndAccuracyForAll" userbox, he would be fair, he is just that kind of user. You don't get on the arbitration committee by being biased. Prodego talk 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, Its an offensive, provocative, and insulting userbox that has no place on a Arbitrator's userpage. Having said that, I did look at the MONGO - Seabchan RFAr, and he did vote to put MONGO on civility patrol and another sanction that most people didn't. By the way - not very many of the particpants in that RFAr dropped their partisanship at the door - but after rereading it - I now realize that 95% about of the comments and evidence, etc, were from people other than Aribtrators. FaAfA (yap) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are entitled to be offended, provoked and insulted if you choose. No one is trying to take that away from you. However you may find things easier if view this project as an encylopedia, rather than a battleground for the left vs right. Viewing everything through the lens of politics is a sure way to find yourself offended, provoked and insulted on a regular basis. Dman727 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand behind my [ edits yesterday and the subsequent progressive user warnings I left on that anon users talk page. I was one of 4 or 5 editors that reverted his edits as they were not appropriate. I encourage everyone to review the history and contribution [2]. But the fact that the community would not only have to fight those types of inappropriate edits, but also your support of it makes it twice as difficult to improve the encyclopedia. -- Tbeatty 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As for your dredging up steven jones, I stated my opinion once on a user talk page. I believe the subsequent actions of BYU has born out my opinion. I learned from that mistake, however, and have not done it again. You have taken Jimbo's quote and the analysis completely out of context. I do not misuse BLP nor do I apply it in a partisan manor. -- Tbeatty 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hinnen still making implied legal threats: "In fact, isn't there an injunction against you? And don't you need to post a link to the text of the injunction on your User page at Wikipedia? Does failure to post that link constitute a violation of the injunction?" User:DeanHinnen|Dino 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) link - FaAfA (yap) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(I just posted the following to ANI)
- Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic ==
I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Wikipedia Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts Dean/Bryan's FR post] - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is expanding onto external web sites means we finish it now or it will get to be far more unmanageable than it already is. I think we have heard enough evidence of everybody's sins by now. Thanks! -- BenBurch 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- An arbitrator (Fred Bauder) has been drafting proposals for the final decision. They can be found on the Workshop page, although it requires some detective work to locate them among everything else. After Fred has received comments and finalized his thinking, he will put his final draft on the /Proposed decision page for the other arbitrators to review, comment, and vote on. So the case is moving toward a conclusion.
Newyorkbrad
04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am just horribly tired of this whole matter. --
BenBurch
14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- My thought now is to take a good look at the editing of
Free Republic (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) and associated articles. I suspect editing based more on making points than on reliable sources. What would the reliable sources be?
Fred Bauder
14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fred, per FAFFA's proposal
here (editing of
Free Republic was generally good before the arrival of Bryan), here is
one version from that time period. No reliable sources that I can see at all, most of the inline links are to Free Republic itself. One part that does have reliable sources is Chad Castagana, which is of course guilt be association.
Thatcher131
14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what T131's point is. The FR article was largely written by FR members and supporters relying on FR as a source. I am NOT responsible for that - and when I DID try to remove OR, I was usually overruled by pro FR editors who claimed 'FR is a RS on FR' etc. Please note my positive, well sourced additions here:
- Tony Snow and
- Dixie Chicks and
- Discussion (important reading as it shows Bryan's sock invasion) and
- Walter Reed
- Please examine my good faith efforts in mediation, Mediation for quite a while, even with Bryan, until he demanded that criticism be limited to once sentence, and started creating sock puppet accounts to 'vote' sway consensus. Note this edit here where I removed a point of interest that I had posted to discussion. (note: 'it's true' means 'it's true JimRob wrote that) I also researched, wrote and added the ENTIRE PreFR JimRob bio part - "Prior to founding Free Republic in 1996" - found here FaAfA (yap) 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what T131's point is. The FR article was largely written by FR members and supporters relying on FR as a source. I am NOT responsible for that - and when I DID try to remove OR, I was usually overruled by pro FR editors who claimed 'FR is a RS on FR' etc. Please note my positive, well sourced additions here:
- Fred, per FAFFA's proposal
here (editing of
Free Republic was generally good before the arrival of Bryan), here is
one version from that time period. No reliable sources that I can see at all, most of the inline links are to Free Republic itself. One part that does have reliable sources is Chad Castagana, which is of course guilt be association.
Thatcher131
14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- My thought now is to take a good look at the editing of
Free Republic (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) and associated articles. I suspect editing based more on making points than on reliable sources. What would the reliable sources be?
Fred Bauder
14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am just horribly tired of this whole matter. --
BenBurch
14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No idea if he will change his mind, but he has marked his user page as retired. -- BenBurch 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- He made edits after it, so I don't think the retirement's gonna stick.
SirFozzie
04:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that he is hoping that this will just blow over if he "retires". Keep an eye out for obvious socks. --
BenBurch
17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. FWIW, I have noticed that its pretty common for folks involved in Arbcoms to announce that they are voluntarily leaving wiki, only to return a few days later usually after being pursuaded to return by their allies. I won't speculate on motivations, but I can think of at least 4 or 5 people who have done this.
Dman727
00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Myself included. -- BenBurch 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. FWIW, I have noticed that its pretty common for folks involved in Arbcoms to announce that they are voluntarily leaving wiki, only to return a few days later usually after being pursuaded to return by their allies. I won't speculate on motivations, but I can think of at least 4 or 5 people who have done this.
Dman727
00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that he is hoping that this will just blow over if he "retires". Keep an eye out for obvious socks. --
BenBurch
17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is possible that he is trying to convince arbitrators not to take further final action as moot. Eschoir 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Possible. I know this has happened in at least one other case, but I suspect that this one will not be allowed to drop. -- BenBurch 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
...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)
- He has mine too. And JzG's, and...
Prodego
talk
00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can one of you powerful admins delve into the dark recesses of this page's history :
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
- Dean was unblocked on the basis that he promised not to edit ArbCom pages at all, so I imagine this ends his input here unless he emails a clerk to provide comments. -- BenBurch 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As always, you have a vivid imagination. That promise was made earlier in the day to admins Newyorkbrad and Thatcher131, due to the constant escalations of sniping, trolling and posting of my family's personal information. It addressed the Evidence and Workshop pages. I hope that this sniping and trolling will stop now. Dino 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
|
- Bauder is on the Arbitration Committee. That is why he is here, since he will be voting on the decision. Prodego talk 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:Fred Bauder is the first Arbitration member of the 10 to weigh in on the Workshop. 5 votes are needed to enact his proposals which will be moved to the Abritrator only page once they reach consensus and have comments. -- Tbeatty 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand he's on the commitee, Prodego. IMO he should recuse. That userbox is partisan, POV, political, and an attack on the left. Anyone who has only three useboxes and chooses one of them to attack (insult, malign, impugne) 50% of ther population must have some pretty strong feelings. What's ironic is that many of the diffs he picked to show my 'misconduct' are less partisan and insulting that his own userbox. - FaAfA (yap) 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that "Stalinists excesses" applies to 50% of the leftists, let alone the population. Nor would I assume that Fred has directed that comment at 50% of the population or anyone in particular. I suspect he has experience with a very small subset of extremists. It may even be a personal experience such as one might experience as a survivor of the Gulag or Holocaust. Also, userboxes aside, Fred wears his Wikipeida hat while on Wikipedia. There is no reason to believe that his personal opinion on anything would impair his ability to render a judgement on what's best for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground and this arbitration case isn't about Left or Right. it's about what's best for the encyclopedia. -- Tbeatty 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This arbcon really isnt about politics. The arbcon is not going to decide if the left or right is correct. Clearly the parties may involved (faafa, deanhinnen, benburch) THINK its about politics, but that belief and the resulting behavior is what brought them here. This arbcon is about behavior. Dman727 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I trust that, even if he had a "I hate FairnessAndAccuracyForAll" userbox, he would be fair, he is just that kind of user. You don't get on the arbitration committee by being biased. Prodego talk 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, Its an offensive, provocative, and insulting userbox that has no place on a Arbitrator's userpage. Having said that, I did look at the MONGO - Seabchan RFAr, and he did vote to put MONGO on civility patrol and another sanction that most people didn't. By the way - not very many of the particpants in that RFAr dropped their partisanship at the door - but after rereading it - I now realize that 95% about of the comments and evidence, etc, were from people other than Aribtrators. FaAfA (yap) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are entitled to be offended, provoked and insulted if you choose. No one is trying to take that away from you. However you may find things easier if view this project as an encylopedia, rather than a battleground for the left vs right. Viewing everything through the lens of politics is a sure way to find yourself offended, provoked and insulted on a regular basis. Dman727 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand behind my [ edits yesterday and the subsequent progressive user warnings I left on that anon users talk page. I was one of 4 or 5 editors that reverted his edits as they were not appropriate. I encourage everyone to review the history and contribution [2]. But the fact that the community would not only have to fight those types of inappropriate edits, but also your support of it makes it twice as difficult to improve the encyclopedia. -- Tbeatty 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As for your dredging up steven jones, I stated my opinion once on a user talk page. I believe the subsequent actions of BYU has born out my opinion. I learned from that mistake, however, and have not done it again. You have taken Jimbo's quote and the analysis completely out of context. I do not misuse BLP nor do I apply it in a partisan manor. -- Tbeatty 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hinnen still making implied legal threats: "In fact, isn't there an injunction against you? And don't you need to post a link to the text of the injunction on your User page at Wikipedia? Does failure to post that link constitute a violation of the injunction?" User:DeanHinnen|Dino 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) link - FaAfA (yap) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(I just posted the following to ANI)
- Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic ==
I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Wikipedia Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts Dean/Bryan's FR post] - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is expanding onto external web sites means we finish it now or it will get to be far more unmanageable than it already is. I think we have heard enough evidence of everybody's sins by now. Thanks! -- BenBurch 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- An arbitrator (Fred Bauder) has been drafting proposals for the final decision. They can be found on the Workshop page, although it requires some detective work to locate them among everything else. After Fred has received comments and finalized his thinking, he will put his final draft on the /Proposed decision page for the other arbitrators to review, comment, and vote on. So the case is moving toward a conclusion.
Newyorkbrad
04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am just horribly tired of this whole matter. --
BenBurch
14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- My thought now is to take a good look at the editing of
Free Republic (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) and associated articles. I suspect editing based more on making points than on reliable sources. What would the reliable sources be?
Fred Bauder
14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fred, per FAFFA's proposal
here (editing of
Free Republic was generally good before the arrival of Bryan), here is
one version from that time period. No reliable sources that I can see at all, most of the inline links are to Free Republic itself. One part that does have reliable sources is Chad Castagana, which is of course guilt be association.
Thatcher131
14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what T131's point is. The FR article was largely written by FR members and supporters relying on FR as a source. I am NOT responsible for that - and when I DID try to remove OR, I was usually overruled by pro FR editors who claimed 'FR is a RS on FR' etc. Please note my positive, well sourced additions here:
- Tony Snow and
- Dixie Chicks and
- Discussion (important reading as it shows Bryan's sock invasion) and
- Walter Reed
- Please examine my good faith efforts in mediation, Mediation for quite a while, even with Bryan, until he demanded that criticism be limited to once sentence, and started creating sock puppet accounts to 'vote' sway consensus. Note this edit here where I removed a point of interest that I had posted to discussion. (note: 'it's true' means 'it's true JimRob wrote that) I also researched, wrote and added the ENTIRE PreFR JimRob bio part - "Prior to founding Free Republic in 1996" - found here FaAfA (yap) 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what T131's point is. The FR article was largely written by FR members and supporters relying on FR as a source. I am NOT responsible for that - and when I DID try to remove OR, I was usually overruled by pro FR editors who claimed 'FR is a RS on FR' etc. Please note my positive, well sourced additions here:
- Fred, per FAFFA's proposal
here (editing of
Free Republic was generally good before the arrival of Bryan), here is
one version from that time period. No reliable sources that I can see at all, most of the inline links are to Free Republic itself. One part that does have reliable sources is Chad Castagana, which is of course guilt be association.
Thatcher131
14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- My thought now is to take a good look at the editing of
Free Republic (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) and associated articles. I suspect editing based more on making points than on reliable sources. What would the reliable sources be?
Fred Bauder
14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am just horribly tired of this whole matter. --
BenBurch
14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No idea if he will change his mind, but he has marked his user page as retired. -- BenBurch 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- He made edits after it, so I don't think the retirement's gonna stick.
SirFozzie
04:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that he is hoping that this will just blow over if he "retires". Keep an eye out for obvious socks. --
BenBurch
17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. FWIW, I have noticed that its pretty common for folks involved in Arbcoms to announce that they are voluntarily leaving wiki, only to return a few days later usually after being pursuaded to return by their allies. I won't speculate on motivations, but I can think of at least 4 or 5 people who have done this.
Dman727
00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Myself included. -- BenBurch 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. FWIW, I have noticed that its pretty common for folks involved in Arbcoms to announce that they are voluntarily leaving wiki, only to return a few days later usually after being pursuaded to return by their allies. I won't speculate on motivations, but I can think of at least 4 or 5 people who have done this.
Dman727
00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that he is hoping that this will just blow over if he "retires". Keep an eye out for obvious socks. --
BenBurch
17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is possible that he is trying to convince arbitrators not to take further final action as moot. Eschoir 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Possible. I know this has happened in at least one other case, but I suspect that this one will not be allowed to drop. -- BenBurch 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)