Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration | THF-DavidShankBone

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Shankbone (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 28 September 2007 (→Finding 7). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Name

"Ted Frank" sans 's'. His article gives also provides some sense of his background. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost purely symbolic at this point, but given the proposed finding that it was discourteous for an editor to keep referring to THF's real name after THF asked everyone to stop, I'm not sure why the proposed decision does so. The version of the finding that Fred originally offered in the workshop might be preferable in this regard. Newyorkbrad 09:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of dispute finding

Maybe "comparing" should be replaced with "contrasting", to make it clear the difference in the two systems. Picaroon (t) 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on "THF banned from politically charged topics"

Which "problematic editing" are we talking about? Incidentally, I think that this proposal, which has been endorsed by both sides, should be adopted in some form. Talk page edits (e.g. the Sicko ranking proposal) won't normally rise to the level of violating COI. I'm a bit mystified by Raul's return for this arbitration, and by his suggestion that THF not edit global warming, which was not at issue in any of these disputes.

Lastly, I hate to parrot THF's argument, but Raul's proposals do beg some questions: what about other editors who regularly cite to their very own work, not just the work of other academically independent fellows under the same employer. (AEI is not so homogeneous to consider all fellows a COI with respect to THF.) Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't just say, "Hey, I wrote this little article and would like to propose it to be included," but was actually arguing that we would violate NPOV policy by not including it. I think it's problematic to imply that "anything goes" on Talk pages where COI issues are concerned. That was the genesis of my COI guideline change proposal, but I belatedly realized it would limit participation too much. In THF's case, he kind of abused the guidelines with his arguments. Which brings me back to my original point that THF often abuses the spirit of guidelines and policies, if not the letter. But ATren, the problems with THF revolve around the totality of his edits and that he doesn't edit with NPOV, a fundamental policy, in mind. He pushed an agenda, something I can not be accused of doing. --David Shankbone 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing that it is improper, indeed against policy, to make an argument on a talk page? Even if the editor in question never edits the article directly and abides by consensus when others don't agree? You aren't really suggesting that, are you David? ATren 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am arguing that THF went over the line of acceptability in his proposal on the Talk page. That is not the only thing I am arguing, but it is one. --David Shankbone 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be Socratic about this, but how could he have proposed it and not have gone over the line? You mention the MULTI problem, but that seems to be at least partially as a reaction to a suggestion that his proposal would logically entail posting it on all relevant articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that his documentary list would be proposed for all 25 articles found on that list wasn't a suggestion it was a suspicion, and I was right. THF confirmed that. That would have made THF's documentary ranking equal in importance to MoJo's rankings, and it would have been an importance Wikipedia alone would have bestowed upon it. It also would have put on 25 film article pages, "Michael Moore's Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too", the title of his "Documentary Rankings". THF saw no problem with this. Had it been my article, I would have made the proposal along the lines of my original COI guideline suggestion. I would have proposed, and let others debate it, interjecting to answer questions or clear up misconceptions. I wouldn't have done it the way THF did, which was as a juggernaut. He was implying that by not using his own work, the Sicko editors were once again proving left-wing bias, and violating policy. That, Luke, goes beyond the bounds of what I consider an acceptable way for a person with COI to make a proposal; but I don't think there is a useful way to codify that, which is why I backed down from the argument over my proposal (which I wasn't the only one who wrote that proposal, it was done in collusion with a neutral editor). --David Shankbone 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have followed up on any of the other pages. Does proposing on more than one talk page make it a "juggernaut," which is sanctionable? I'm not clear on the limits of what you or the arbitrators might consider sanctionable. How about an example: say that I proposed that this article be mentioned in articles on Larry H. Miller and EnergySolutions. This is basically my work that's been published in a reliable source, not unlike THF's list. Still, it has the patina of second-gen OR to it, like one might perceive in THF's article. Would I be breaking COI to suggest that it be mentioned in more than one article? What if I demanded it mention all articles listed? When does the COI guideline frown on it? What if I claimed that Wikipedia was promoting a pro-corporate agenda by denying my refs, does it become against the COI there? I simply don't see where acceptable good faith talk comments transmute into actionable COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. Consider this example from the Sicko talk archives: THF produces twelve sources of criticism for Sicko, including some conservative sources, but also including the Toronto Star, Washington Post, Business Week, and that bastion of right wing propaganda, MTV! Others objected, with reasoning that included "I assert that left-wing polemics, and left-wing criticisms of right-wing polemics, are generally more accurate, hence generally better represented in Wikipedia.", "Take it to Conservapedia", "Ted, if you want the relatively few right-wing screeds to get treated with undue weight, you'll find a happy home at Conservapedia." and "reception of avowed right-ring publications will be negative, " and later, "I think this dispute is a transparent attempt at Wikipedia:WikiLawyering a high weight to the conservative viewpoint that isn't actually related to the subject of this article but the Universal health care debate. I am not impressed, and it seems that most serious editors aren't either" implying that Ted was not a serious editor. Ted continued to pursue the point that there should be mention of the controversy in the lead paragraph based on multiple cited sources including even a new reference to the New York Times (a conservative rag if there ever was one), and all he got in response was POV-loaded arguments like the ones cited above - and he was the one accused of disruption and wikilawyering.
So, to summarize: THF argued the point on the talk page and backed it up with reliable mainstream references; others called his sources "right wing screeds", accused him of wikilawyering, and implied that his arguments were non-serious. Meanwhile, the article today includes criticism in the intro, which it should (does anybody really believe that Sicko is without controversy?) And for this, THF is being hounded off the project. Conclusion: the right wingers who accuse Wikipedia of bias might just have a point... ATren 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • THF's proposals had little to do with criticizing Sicko the film, but criticizing the organizations that Michael Moore, and many other organizations, governments, and IGO's rely upon for data. THF was tossing out 25 links at at time, inundating the Talk page with days-worth of homework to wade through. Most of ATren's and CHL's arguments above have been addressed, and ATren's in particular was discussed here on the Sicko page with THF. Again, it comes down to, "Agree with us, or you prove the bias against right-wing editors." THF's problem has been THF, not his ideology. It has been about the way he makes proposals, the way he tries to bully his point of view (including with his own work) and his contentious nature. None of us are in law school, Luke, and I don't think the arbitrators (or myself) are interesting in running through the nuance of socratic method hypotheticals. I think part of the problem is that the people who have advocated on behalf of THF (ATren and CHL) see nothing wrong with the way he has conducted himself, have made no proposals for how he could better edit, and condone everything he has done. Had THF not had an activist agenda, he would not have run into many of these problems; had he not revealed who he was, he would have been blocked for violating NPOV and agenda-pushing. --David Shankbone 12:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, yes. Note, this does not mean I agree with his arguments, but that I do agree (with a few exceptions) with the way he presented them. You seem to be offended by his mere presence here, and that's a problem. ATren 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this statement shows how inexperienced you are with edit wars. Few POV editors follow policy as scrupulously as THF. If you would like to see actual POV warriors, please take a look at Quackwatch where several SPAs on each side hurl uncivil comments and endlessly revert actual articles such that they are periodically locked. Several of these are probably COI editors, and ArbCom strongly suspected one was several months ago, but they continue to edit unmolested, and will probably continue for many more months, if not indefinitely. They’re much worse than every caricature of THF you’ve presented, but they don’t have a David Shankbone dragging them around.
This editor manifestly was not and is not given latitude for his identity. If you had more experience with POV editors, you would realize that they’re almost never blocked when they are (1) civil, (2) don’t engage in edit wars, and (3) are aware of Wikipedia policy. Just ask Raul how easy it is to get such editors blocked. (For further proof, compare this with this—the former editor is much worse at following policy than THF, yet will probably remain with us for some time.) Again, this remedy comes down to punishing this editor for naively taking WP:COI at face value. Cool Hand Luke 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we have not yet rid Wikipedia of all problem users is not a justification for keeping one around, nor does it excuse THF's problematic editing. Raul654 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I posit that this user really isn't a problem user. Moreover, the fact that a self-identified editor will be systemically drummed of the project creates a clear incentive to not self identify, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Basically, you propose we constrain his editing more for signing up under his real name than other users after months of attacks and 3RR violations. It seems we're going after the perception of COI editing more than the reality, which doesn't really solve anything. I could perhaps support this decision if we treated every POV warrior this way, but we don't, and it creates perverse incentives. Cool Hand Luke 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "drumming him out of the project". If THF has chosen to quit (as we are repeatedly reminded), that's his own decision. In fact, it sounds like a threat: "If you sanction me, I'll quit." Regardless of the value that any single editor brings to the project, to allow that editor the latitude to hold the project hostage is a strategy which will doom the project to failure. Furthermore, while you claim to "support this decision", you then undermine it by claiming that we have to treat every POV warrior this way. In other words, we will be creating a precedent that no POV warrior can ever be sanctioned, because there will always be other, prior POV warriors who were never effectively dealt with. Perhaps this is the time to start so that a more effective precedent can be set. Ossified 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with Ossified (who edit conflicted me, making my comment mostly redundant). Anyways, the fact that it is infeasible to treat all POV warriors with this sort of a topic ban is not reason to not do it to some of them. Picaroon (t) 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say otherwise, but it creates a clear incentive to avoid disclosing COI, which is a bad thing for wikipedia with no possible upside. All things considered, one THF in the open is benign compared to the underground COI editors we utterly fail to address. If we want a double standard, it should be to impose the harsher rules against those who admit no COI. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no double standard. All editors are supposed to disclose the existence of a COI. That is necessary, but it's not sufficient to innoculate the editor from future claims that they are POV-pushing or editing in a NPOV fashion. That THF disclosed his COI is not admirable--it's required, in the same way that editing in a NPOV fashion isn't admirable, it's what you're supposed to do when you come here. There is no double standard related to COI, there's a single standard. An editor with a conflict must disclose. Likewise, there are no 'harsher' rules for those who fail to disclose, there is a rule for those who fail to disclose, period. Underground COI editors are subject to sanction regardless of whatever sanctions are applied in this case. Ossified 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like how FAAFA immediately disclosed his identity? Perhaps one day we will verify all user's identities. Until then we have to cope with the reality on the ground, which rewards users who self-disclose with proceedings like this. In this environment, we doubly reward the dishonest. We should watch him for POV (and his disclosure makes that easy to do), but we should apply the same POV standard we would apply to any other editor. Doing otherwise is not supported by policy, and hurts the project by encouraging closet COIs. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)I have no idea what controversy regarding FAAFA you are referring to. You are, however, insistent on setting up a strawman regarding disclosure. Editors are required to disclose, period. There are sanctions for failure to do that, period. Will there be cheaters? I guarantee it, regardless of what happens in this ArbCom. Your argument 6 messages ago was that (to paraphrase) 'since we haven't sanctioned POV warriors in the past, we can't start sanctioning them now.' I was arguing against that logic. You have now apparently changed what your argument is, to some hypothetical involving what editors will do in the future. I'm sure that we can all imagine horrible consequences that will occur if the ArbCom fails to follow our lead. At the end of the day, however, they are hypothetical and there will still be rules in place to deal with them. Ossified 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you know who FAAFA is. The point is that our policy can say that we demand that all users to wear green socks, but it doesn't mean anything unless they have a reason to co-operate. I think most people have the goodwill to volunteer disclosure like THF, but if it means a topic ban from the only subjects they care about, it's a counterproductive pseudopolicy.
And that's not what I said at all—not even slightly. My arguments have always talked about the incentives and deterrents we create for editors, ever since I suggested that ArbCom take this case. I apparently haven't made this clear enough. ArbCom is free to start sanctioning POV warriors, but if THF is how low we set the bar, a lot of people will have to go. ArbCom shows no interest in making the general rules so nitpicky; it's clear that this is some sort of COI exception, and it should not be that way. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who FAAFA is. I do know this, however: you can have a policy requiring editors to disclose COI and you can require them to be civil and you can tell them not to push POV, but if you don't enforce them, they're nonproductive pseudopolicies. Suggesting that THF isn't the worst of the lot and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned leads to a very subjective decision of who to sanction, and everyone is free to claim that there's someone worse than they are (see earlier claims regarding CBerlet, WMC, and Wikidea). Net result? No enforcement, no sanctions, just pseudopolicies. Ossified 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into that argument either. My sole concern is—and has always been—that if we apply harsher sanctions to users that disclose COI, then no one will disclose COI. It's like THF is getting a fine for chewing gum on the train, while those who simply jump the turnstiles never get fines for precisely the same behavior—and rarely get fines for wholesale vandalism of the train. Since we can't enforce who boards the train, it would be better if we treat all passengers equally, so that some riders actually reveal useful things about themselves. So let's enforce the policies, but let's do it as we would for any other user. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been my point all along. The very fact that many of us are anonymous means that we may all have potential COI concerns. This is why we say to judge edits not editors. And I've still not seen evidence of abuse by THF. Certainly not bad faith. I still assert: if he were anonymous, nobody would have noticed. For example, Ossified, I saw that you've added criticism from Media Matters and the like, to articles about conservative commentators. No eyebrows were raised - and for all we know you could be Michael Moore himself. We continue to analyze THF the man rather than THF the editor - in effect punishing him for his disclosure. ATren 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was never on the workshop page so there is no place for the community to comment on it. This proposal is a gross injustice. THF in real life is a notable expert on political matters per his AfD discussion. He certainly must conform to all the policies, but a ban is rather draconian and flies in the face of common sense. --DHeyward 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your key point, that THF is a notable expert, needs some clarification. THF is an anonymous editor who has insisted that his name not be used. How can an anonymous person claim expertise? In other words, how is expertise not tied to identity? It seems that they are inseparable. If so, claims to anonymity must be secondary to claims of expertise. If an editor willingly dons the mantle of expertise, he must, by definition, accept that his anonymity has been compromised. There still remain protections from harassment, stalking, etc., but any claims of anonymity at that point are fatally compromised. Furthermore, it should be concluded as obvious that once the shroud of anonymity has been lifted, it can't be effectively be replaced. Ossified 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really claim to not know THF's identity? ATren 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do know his identity. I have also been a contributor to these procedings. Likewise, anyone else who has been following them (or the mm.com affair) is likely to know his identity. Going forward, however, there are likely to be new editors of articles that THF edits. They will likely not know his identity. Since we can safely assume that THF will wish to retain his anonymity going forward (if he doesn't, then he could be seen to be 'whipsawing' WP and wikilawyering over the fundamental incompatibility of claimed expertise and anonymity), he should not be making any future claims of expertise. Ossified 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to accept that if you also stipulate that he is not subject to any COI since he is now anonymous as you say. Since the arguments for stifling his contributions are because of a perceived COI related to his real world identity, your proposal that he be considered anonymous would render these arguments moot. --DHeyward 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All editors are subject to COI, whether known or anonymous. There is no requirement that editors identify themselves if they have a conflict of interest--only that they avoid breaching relevant policices and guidelines, including NPOV. I would suggest the following, taking into account ATren's comment above regarding my (among others') knowledge of THF's true identity: I could make a claim of COI in the future against THF, but would be wise to not identify him by name in such a claim. That would honor his request for anonymity as far as future editors are concerned, while acknowledging that he has previously disclosed his identity. Similarly, I wouldn't claim that he has no expertise in, say tort reform, although others editors, unaware of his true identity, could make such a challenge. This is, in my opinion, the only way for all editors to act in good faith going forward, particularly when you consider that only THF is responsible for the fact that his identity was revealed in the first place. Ossified 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you are juxtaposing two incongruous propositions: "anonymous expert". He is ether known and recognized as an expert, or he is not. Since there is no requirement or advantage to being an expert on Wikipedia, editors credentials are not that important. So ThF making an edit that cites expert "Ted Frank" with a reliable source is technically no different than editor joe shmoe citing expert "Ted Frank." His anonymity doesn't hinge on his expertise and his expertise doesn't hinge on his anonymity. Ted Franks expertise and notability have already been established at his AfD. --DHeyward 07:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity
Obviously, there is no way for user:THF to return to editing under a cloak of anonymity. The same user would have to use a fresh account, let's call him UserX. Could a UserX, as opposed to the same editor using a 'real' name, get away with editing to benefit his co-workers and employer? I'd hope not. Anonymity should not shield anyone from WP:COI or other guidelines or policies. Anonymous and pseudononymous editors have the same responsibilites as editors who (purport) to edit under their real names. While it mag seem harder for the community to detect and handle the violations from unnamed editors, tools like Wikiscanner or CheckUser change the equation.
Expertise
Does UserX, or THF, or even a "real named" editor get to claim the right to insert unsourced material, or override a consensus, due to his purported expertise alone? The information and assertions of experts need to be just as verifiable and neutral as those of the uncredentialed. We have no policy that allows a law-fellow, or even a Supreme Court justice, to engage in original research. Yet all experts may bring their actual expertise to bear on issues, without resorting to claims of credentials. Let them cite sources, marshal arguments, and prove points as only experts can. We all know that there are idiots with Ph.D.s. We should rely on demonstrated expertise rather than asserted credentials.
Conflict
Editing articles in one's professional field can be a minefield for COI. THF is known as a professional advocate on certain topics. Reporters call him when they want a pithy line on tort reform (no mean feat, I'm sure). He has been a lawyer in private practice until recently, and it's likely he'll return to representing corporate clients in the future. That's a different situation from a college professor who typically settles into academic, non-commercial tenure.
There is an inevitable conflict when editing articles about one's employers, past or present. While initially revealing his role at his organization, THF went on to make numerous edits to its article and to related articles without the deference expected in COI cases. This editor, in my opinion, has not shown adequate restraint in managing this most obvious instances of COI, let alone the more debatable political and legal issues (of which there are plenty).
Politically charged topics
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to promote or oppose tort reform, or any other topic either. Advocates do not make good encyclodists. If Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken (two opposite political advocates) came here they would undoubtedly be RfCed or even blocked in short order. Encyclopedia writing should be a dull distillation of secondary sources, not a dramatic exchange of ideas. No matter how brilliant an editor may be they still have to conform to the confines of NOR, NPOV, V, etc. This editor has demonstrated himself to be too much of an advocate on political and legal topics to be an effective encyclopedia editor, at least on those topics of his greatest zeal. He may be able to write about other topics with perfect neutrality so a total ban is not required.
Celebrity editors
Beyond experts there are celebrities. These are named editors who have exposure in the media, with or without credentials. They tend to have large audiences, loud voices, and little patience. If offended they may react with a flurry of blog postings or press releases. Because of their influence any publication seeking respectability (i.e. Wikipedia) has to avoid offending them as much as possible. To avoid nasty entanglements in intricate policy or content disputes, it may actually be wisest to politely ask celebrities to move on (or at least assume deep cover).
·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't argue with much of this, but most of it is completely irrelevant to this case. When did THF insert original research? When did he edit against consensus? You seem to be confusing debate with disruption here. Again, I ask those who are making allegations that THF edited so problematically to point to mainspace examples of original research, edit warring, or other abusive tactics. I've not found any significant examples of abuse in mainspace, which means this entire case seems to be about squelching POV debate, which is very troublesome.
In fact, here's an example where he removed a reasonable anti-Moore claim because it was original research - a clear example of THF placing the policies and principles of the encyclopedia above his own POV. This example is very telling, because the reverted text was not clear-cut vandalism, and it was actually a claim that I've heard people make about Sicko, yet THF removed it as OR. If we're trying to ascertain THF's true motives, this "edit for the enemy" is a compelling piece of evidence that THF edited in good faith. Once again, people seem to be confusing the man with the editor, allowing their distaste for the man's views to cloud their judgement on his editing history. ATren 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to "expertise," many of the edits cited you and others are of THF removing "unsourced material." As for your headings on conflicts and anonymity I've posted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence#COI users must be judged by the same standards as other users. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the AEI

Y'know, it's not really possible for the AEI to espouse viewpoints because they aren't a lobbying organization. At best he espoused views held by his colleagues, who are a heterogeneous bunch of academically independent fellows (AEI scholar Jack Goldsmith is not speaking to AEI scholar John Yoo). A talk page link to a webcast hosted by them and a correctly-labeled point of view from a conservative hardly shows a violation of our policies, let alone the COI guideline. If this is worthy of being topic banned, a lot of editors will have to be banned, such that no one would dare declare any potential conflicts of interest ever. That's really the heart of such a punitive rule. If THF hadn't told you from day one, nobody would have even known to accuse him of a COI. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many arguments you guys raise are strawmen. If THF hadn't told us who he was, he still would not have been successful in any regard. That he was from AEI, I feel, made people pay attention to his arguments more--it did for me. But if he wasn't from AEI things like the Moore hit piece fiasco would have been seen as the efforts of a loose canon editor with a weight problem. We shouldn't be giving editors who do the right thing--declaring their COI--carte blanche to do and say anything they want by rewarding them with deference. I believe THF would have been blocked had he not revealed who he was; I think he was given extraordinary latitude precisely because of who he is. --David Shankbone 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe he would have been blocked for his behavior? Where is this coming from? What blockable offense are you referring to? I'm sorry, but this is approaching the level of parody. Look at those talk pages. Look at some of the stuff other anonymous editors were saying to THF, and then tell me again with a straight face that he would have been blocked for his words! This would be positively hilarious if not for the fact that now we have two arb com members are endorsing this witch hunt. ATren 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, multiple editors have supplied evidence of THF's problematic editing. You are welcome to review the evidence and workshop pages. --David Shankbone 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that ATren, CHL, or myself are suggesting that THF's behaviour was never problematic, merely that it wasn't problematic to the extent that some are asserting. Given how high-profile the dispute became, if he had earned a block, wouldn't he have been blocked? SamBC(talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of people think I earned a block, and I wasn't so much as warned of being blocked aside from a Raymond Arnitt and Georgewilliamherbert threatening both of us. I don't think the absence of a block means he didn't deserve a block. I don' think the absence of resistance to THF's edits made them NPOV, such as on Robert Bork. --David Shankbone 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) David, I've seen all the evidence, and I've commented on it, some of it (mildly) critical of THF. None of it approaches the level of a blockable offense, especially given what he's been subjected to. David, I opposed a ban for you, but honestly this level of piling on and revisionist history is starting to become very problematic for me. This was an overblown content dispute, and while THF was producing rock solid sources and playing by the rules, others were telling him to "take it to Conservapedia". Through all that crap, he remained relatively civil, and abided by consensus when neutral third parties disagreed with him (see the multiple RfCs he filed). And now, here, you and other have spent two weeks digging through his edit history and have produced, what, THREE questionable mainspace edits? And even those were marginally questionable. This is a witch hunt that has driven a valuble editor from the project, and yet here you are, continuing to pile on new unfounded accusations. It needs to stop. ATren 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what needs to stop is the level of hyperbole that has reached breath-taking heights on THF's side. --David Shankbone 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to respond with real evidence of blockable offenses? No, I guess not, since you've already canvassed his entire edit history and the best you could come up with was a few minor civility transgressions. You're the one that continues to escalate, even after you've "retired" what, 3 times from this case? Ironically, early on you mocked THF for coming back from "retirement" and you are now approaching Roger Clemens territory here. It makes me wonder if perhaps you have a personal association with Michael Moore which you haven't yet revealed, because I can't understand how you can be so personally offended by THF's activities on the Sicko page. ATren 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging in this unsupported speculation is not helpful. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm not going to delve into these kinds of arguments. ATren 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of this Decision

It seems like a sanction against THF is starting to build support in the proposed decision, and I would like to raise two issues:

  • This case will serve as a roadmap for how an influential third party like Michael Moore can drive a respected editor off the project: antagonize him, mock him, dig up dirt from his past, get your fans to anonymously attack his user page, then sit back and watch as his on-wiki opponents push him further over the edge.
  • This case is practially a banner ad for the abomination that is Conservapedia. "Respected conservative gets hounded off Wikipedia" will be the crux of the campaign, and what evidence will this committee cite in its defense? A few slightly marginal mainspace edits? THF is not some random anonymous hack who was pushing conspiracy theories, he is a respected conservative intellect who cited solid mainstream sources to support his view that some articles were skewed to the left, and he was summarily hounded off a project where even anonymous vandals get 3rd, 4th, and 5th warnings. The only reasonable conclusion is that he was rejected because his views. ATren 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Sunshine, not over yet... Fred Bauder 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strawman cometh again. --David Shankbone 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, ATren, the way you harass User:Avidor by citing his name, and keeping a blog criticizing his Wikipedia work (called "Weiner Watch" - a personal attack, since Weiner isn't a very nice way to describe a Wikipedian), and proudly trumpeting this harassment of him on your User page doesn't give you much moral credibility. How do your concerns in this case fit with your year-long harassment (you've had that blog going since September 2006) of User:Avidor? You don't feel shadowing his edits and criticizing them in a frequently updated blog isn't harassment? If anyone should be making these arguments above, it should not be you, since your own behavior is imminently questionable as it regards Avidor. Where do you get off talking about harassment of THF, who outed himself, and saying that questioning his behavior, that at least 15 different editors admonished him over in the month of August alone, leads to harassment? Why don't you clean your own house first? Maybe "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is more fitting - you choose. --David Shankbone 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the next target to be hounded off the project. ATren 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another strawman - you don't think your aren't hounding Avidor? How is your own behavior any better? Why don't you take the blog down and cease harassing him? That would be sufficient. --David Shankbone 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this case, but you continue to bring it up even though you know nothing about the history of that debate. Yet again we see another data point in the DavidShankBone MO: when in a conflict with another editor, dig through that editor's history in an attempt to find isolated, inflammatory material to be used against him in a completely unrelated dispute. Thank you for proving our point that this is always been about attacking the editor for you. ATren 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It goes to your lack of any moral credibility here. You made yourself part of this ArbCom, but now you don't want your own dirty house brought up? Please. You should be ashamed of yourself, ATren. Regardless of the history of your "debate" with User:Avidor, you use his real name on your page, you have an off-wiki blog that criticizes his Wikipedia edits, and you have done this for a year. You have half your User page space devoted to this harassment of another Wikipedia editor. Yet you come into this ArbCom ranting about harassment over THF, who has had a long and problematic history on Wikipedia?! It's galling, your nerve and hypocrisy. You have no room to make the arguments you make. That you consider all of these factual statements an "attack" is very THF-esque. What have I written above that is not factually true? --David Shankbone 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what does my "moral credibility" have to do with this case and the arguments I've made on this page? Can you separate the argument from the editor making it? I came to this case as a completely uninvolved third party, yet you seem to want to attack me and my "moral credibility" because I happened to have a long running dispute with someone else completely unrelated to this case. To me, that's just more evidence of a troublesome pattern. ATren 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Doom, THF, ATren, CHL: Priceless

Reviewing this ArbCom, it's pretty priceless. THF, an activist editor, who has made POV edits across Wikipedia, been involved in numerous disputes, called at least two long-term editors vandals, including Raul64, has inserted his own blog work onto articles, tried to get his own unnotable article attacking Michael Moore inserted into 25 film articles, who has edited his employer's page, created the article for his employer's rag The American (magazine) (which just so happened to have published THF's article), in a one month span was admonished by 15 editors, is held up by CHL as "admin material" and is called a victim of left-wing bias. David Shankbone, on the other hand, has spent the last year uploading over 2,000 images of people and things that are hard to obtain; has created articles over interesting topics ranging in a broad variety of subject matter, all heavily cited in an NPOV; has collaborated across multiple Wikipedia projects; is highly regarded by both the Wikimedia Foundation and those who edit its projects; who has absolutely not one shred of evidence of an agenda in his history; he, Shankbone, has been the primary focus of the Arbitration. Until yesterday, pretty much all of the proposal remedies centered around banning me, warning me, calling me a "menace", shadowing me, putting me on probation and harassment patrol. THF's side raises the double-standard issue often. Yet we have on that side ATren, who for over a year has kept on his User space an advertisement for a blog called "Weiner Watch" that focuses solely on the edits of User:Avidor. He mocks him, he calls him names, he tracks his every move, and he crows about it. Yet nothing has been done. Then ATren comes here and rants about off-wiki harassment by MichaelMoore.com for simply fingering a known public critic, THF, who edits all of his articles. ATren comes on here complaining of the harassment and double-standard applied to THF, not realizing the same argument could be raised that there seems to be a double-standard at work with him. Where is CHL's denunciation of this harassment of User:Avidor? Is this acceptable, CHL? Do you condone it? Here's a quote from ATren's User page:

Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch" where I analyze and debunk the claims made by Ken Avidor about PRT. Some have erroneously claimed I am attacking Avidor on this blog - I strongly disagree. I attack only his claims, which are provably false, and his tactics, which are just plain dirty. Nothing personal.

What if I substituted in THF? Does anyone doubt I would be blocked? What if the exact same thing occurred in this situation, and I had this on my User page:

Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Michael Moore Enthusiast") called "Double Chin Watch" where I analyze and debunk the claims made by Ted Frank about Michael Moore. Some have erroneously claimed I am attacking THF on this blog - I strongly disagree. I attack only his claims, which are provably false, and his tactics, which are just plain dirty. Nothing personal.

Seriously: that sixty day ban would have been without question. Then ATren, who not only was involved in the MichaelMoore.com dispute, but also has made himself very involved here, actively chiming in against THF's "harassment", says this isn't about him. Yet Wikidea and Guettarda have been dragged into this insistently by THF's side, even both of those editors have insisted they do not want to be part of it. Double standard? I've done nothing at all of the sort of reprehensible harassment that has befallen User:Avidor. I have admitted from the beginning that I made mistakes in how I handled this entire affair, and the ArbCom would be right to point that out and let me know how to do better in the future. THF has not been conciliatory at all. His defenders see only the most minor of missteps by THF. Indeed, CHL thinks he should be an admin. On one hand, CHL lauds [1][2] THF's on Jim Hood as a hero fighting COI, and then just moments later calls them a BLP disaster. Confused? Me too. Unlike THF's side, my arguments have remained consistent and logically sound. I haven't tried to game policies or guidelines. I've expressed regret at my "over exuberance" in pursuit of an agenda-drive POV editor. But THF's side...they really are in a league of their own. All the old familiar doomsday bogeyman have been trotted out: I have a "personal relationship" with Michael Moore (yet I've only edited Sicko); ArbCom is dooming Wikipedia with any findings against THF; there is a left-wing bias on Wikipedia and this proves it; nobody will ever again admit their COI; blah, blah, blah. All these strawmen slippery-slope arguments go back to the same thing: don't question THF, he's done not one thing wrong, and if you find that his unacceptable behavior is just that, then you, ArbCom, have opened a Pandora's Box of hellish proportions upon the project. This is what they argue, not me. The heightened pitch and tone of their arguments are more than "over exuberant" but almost shrill. Yet it is their own logic and double-standards that continually fail. Not mine.--David Shankbone 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the new proposed decision

Like some other commenters here, I am concerned about the direction in which this case seems to be headed. The three arbitrators who have voted thus far are divided on whether THF violated Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy in a significant way. That is consistent with the split that had arisen within the community on this issue. Personally, I don't think that this case is most usefully analyzed in terms of WP:COI but more in terms of undue weight issues. In any event, though, the committee took this case largely to try to address how our conflict of interest guidelines applied to this editor, but is deciding the case with largely conclusory pronouncements (Fred's assertion that THF did not violate COI, versus Raul's and Kirill's assertion that he did). Little analysis has been offered to support either conclusion, leaving the community, in terms of guidance for future situations, with little more policy analysis or discussion of how COI should apply in a relatively novel situation than we had before.

In the meantime, as a result of being dragged into this arbitration case, THF has announced that he has retired from editing Wikipedia, and for several days has engaged in little or no editing. Given that THF is widely understood to be a well-known attorney and policy analyst in real life, and the fact that his real-life identity is widely known (and is gratuitiously mentioned in this decision, as I pointed out higher on this page), a formal conclusion by the Arbitration Committee that THF violated Wikipedia conflict-of-interest policies bears the potential to be thrown in this former editor's face and used against him in real-world contexts. This although the COI infractions occurred in largely unsettled territory; although several respected editors (including an arbitrator) concluded that there was no COI; and although the record is replete with good-faith, if in some arbitrators' estimation inadequate, disclosure of the potential conflicts.

In addition, even assuming for the sake of argument that THF edited inappropriately and in violation of WP:COI, and even assuming that he were going to return to edit in the future, the remedy proposal under which "THF is banned from all politically charged topics, including (but not limited to) those dealing with Michael Moore, health care, and global warming" strikes me as draconian and grossly excessive. No justification for the scope of the remedy has been offered and it appears to be disproportionate to both the scope of THF's offenses and to remedies applied to other editors in earlier cases.

THF, particularly in his latter days, was not a model editor, but I find the nature, tone, and potential effect of the proposed findings and remedy against him to be highly unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
In any event, though, the committee took this case largely to try to address how our conflict of interest guidelines applied to this editor, but it deciding the case with largely conclusory pronouncements (Fred's assertion that THF did not violate COI, versus Raul's and Kirill's assertion that he did). Little analysis has been offered to support either conclusion, leaving the community, in terms of guidance for future situations, with little more policy analysis or discussion of how COI should apply in a relatively novel situation than we had before. - Fair enough. Can you be specific in what kind of guidance you are looking for? Raul654 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about the potential impact of any decision in this case on THF's real-world activities are actually my greatest area of concern about the decision and raise questions about whether this case is the right vehicle for addressing general questions about the scope of the COI policy. But assuming that it proceeds, what is not answered is why the arbitrators believe that THF violated the COI policy, and what he should have done differently, and why the remedy adopted is proportional to the violations of policy that took place. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I can only speak for myself, but the reason I see this as a conflict of interest is that THF is paid by a political advocacy group (Cool Hand Luke's claims that the American Enterprise Institue is not a political advocacy group are completely at odds with reality). Hypothetially speaking, if this were the only issue, I don't think that mere fact by itself would be sufficient to say THF is he is editing with a conflict of interest. But the fact is, David and Smb have pointed to multiple instances of problematic editing. The two combined - the problematic editing and the fact that he works for an advocacy group - are what, to me, constitutes a conflict of interest. This is codified in FOF #7 - THF's problematic editing (FOF #4), combined with his employment by a political advocacy group, violated Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.
THF does not fashion it that way, of course. At the risk of putting words in his mouth (and I could well be wrong on this), I think he sees himself as an expert on this topic, and I do remember on occasion seeing him compare himself to William M. Connelly (an prolific contributor expert climatologist). That may well be so. However, the difference here is stark - global warming, one of the articles WMC contributes to frequently, is a featured article that has been vetted (both internally and externally) and is generally considered to be an excellent treatment of the subject. It is truly a shame that THF did not put his expertise to better use, and the mess on the Sicko article is the result.
As far as why the remedy is reasonable - I think given the way this has unfolded, it is reasonable to consider suspicious THF's edits to topics where his employer has a vested interest - that is, political topics. Banning him from those topics removes the conflict of interest. I see that as a fair. Raul654 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't apply the same strict criteria to others similarly situated. Fred Bauder 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A big difference is how you are perceiving what they write. Global warming is big business and big research. You could easily construe that maintaining global warming as a major political problem facing mankind provides for the livelihood of a number of climatologists, specifically the component that can be changed (i.e. the study of "man-made global warming"). You seem to be willing to discount this potential COI while highlighting Ted Frank's. It seems you simply see Ted Frank's expert opinion as suspicious and William Connelly's as constructive. I believe this may be a personal bias and not an objective opinion. In reality, the only thing that matters is Reliably Sourced, NPOV and proper weight. You can then have a content disagreement, but your proposal to interpret COI as policy in this overly broad and subject to a lot of perosnal interpretation and, frankly, abuse if it becomes precedent. --DHeyward 06:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim they weren't an advocacy group, just that the fellows are independent with differing (albeit conservative) views. One can't be held to have conflicts with independent fellows; we might as well claim that he has a COI with respect to all conservatives. At any rate, can you be more specific about which edits were problematic? The edits cited in FOF#4 are less than illuminating. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming that he has a conflict of interest between THF and either the AEI or the fellows thereof. The claim is that there is a conflict between the best interests of WP and best interests of his employer, the AEI. That there are many fellows at the AEI and that they may each have their own areas of expertise only means that THF should exercise extreme caution not to overemphatically represent the interests of any of the positions espoused espoused by AEI fellows and/or promoted by his his employer AEI. Failure to exercise that caution manifests itself in the appearance, if not the reality, of biased subject matter being inserted in the encyclopedia. The problem is not that a conflict exists. The problem is how the editor resolves that conflict. If he acts for the benefit of his employer, to the detriment of WP, there's a problem. Ossified 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
any of the positions espoused by his employer -- My employer doesn't espouse any positions. It hires a set of independent scholars across the mainstream political spectrum, many of whom publicly disagree with one another, as I have documented on the evidence page. THF 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence storage (talk • contribs)
I was mistaken in choosing to use "espoused by his employer". I should have used "promoted by his employer" or "espoused by THF and his AEI colleagues". I'll strike and correct it above, but I stand by the sentiment expressed by the corrected statement. Ossified 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks user Ossified, but this isn't explained in the current proposals. What exactly is it about the edits in FOF#4 that makes them unacceptable? If they are supposed to be POV, then we are clearly applying a much higher standard than the NPOV policy usually demand of ArbCom—I wonder whether this can be explained with reference to policy. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be disagreeable, but it's defined rather explicitly in Proposed Principle #4: 4) A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the purposes of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict. - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Ossified 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and you repeated it above. What's missing is the analysis connecting FOF#4B to a violation in policy. Cool Hand Luke 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I was only dealing with correcting what appeared to be your misinterpretation of where the conflict lay in a conflict of interest. Then when you suggested that it wasn't in the principles, I felt the need to point out where it was directly addressed. I'll get on to your other issue in the morning, assuming someone doesn't address it in the meantime. Ossified 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. It seems unless we regurgitate evidence from the evidence page over and over again, we are not supplying evidence. THF doesn't edit with an NPOV. That's a policy. Just because you don't believe the evidence isn't pertinent doesn't make it so. I stopped looking for evidence once I got to June, but I can continue reviewing THF's edits. In fact, July and August were some of his most problematic months when he starting really going at the Global Warming and Michael Moore articles. I also don't see how the episode with Jance is discounted, considering it was only months ago. I feel like THF's side looks at what it wants to look at, and makes excuses for the rest. --David Shankbone 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I also want to point out that THF's side, and Georgewilliamherbert, have been so utterly focused on me with this THF episode, where I have admitted I could have handled the situation better, but almost cast a blind eye to a persistent pattern of contentious behavior, arguing, name calling, and POV edits by THF; no such pattern has ever been established for me, and I invite anyone to review my edits (I'm sure they have) to try to come up with one. Yet I'm the "menace" and THF is the one who must be protected. It boggles the mind. --David Shankbone 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You paint yourself as the innocent victim here, but how do you explain this, just posted yesterday? ATren 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I'm glad you link to a message that is just above this thread as an "AHA!" moment, but I stand but what I wrote. I also like the "you paint yourself as an innocent victim" bit when I have continually said I could have handled the THF situation better. I think I have said all I want to say at this point, so wake me when the ArbCom rules. --David Shankbone 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Fred. If such a broad brush is applied to COI ("topics where his employer has a vested interest - that is, political topics. Banning him from those topics removes the conflict of interest. I see that as a fair.") is somewhat scary. I voted in the last election. I have a vested interest in such things as health care and taxes. Is that a COI? I don't think so. If Americans edit articles on American Hisotry is that a COI? No, of course not. The encyclopedia is driven by reliable sources, NPOV and proper weighting. The COI guideline is supposed to be a guide to editors to help them step back and identify where they may not be upholding those pillars. Editors who receive sanction should receive it for adding content in violation of the RS, NPOV or WEIGHT provisions, not a perceived COI which is also subjective. Using it as offensive weapon to stifle opposing voices on the grounds that it is a COI for the opponents or proponents of a particular way of thinking to source and espouse that viewpoint, even though it is in line with policy (RS, NPOV, WEIGHT), is rather draconian and Orwellian. --DHeyward 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with DHeyward. Although this may be an unfair comparison, what's next? Prohibiting chemists from editing chemistry articles, just because they happen to be employed by DuPont? (Not my employer, by the way.) COI and NPOV judgments should be made based on edits, not the editors. (Cases such as COFS are the exception, but certainly not the rule.) shoy 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a chemist who worked for DuPont made many numerous edits to the article on DuPont, created or edited articles on Dupont products and co-workers, cited his own controversial papers on the health effects of DuPont products, added links to his own blogs, and otherwise disruptively violated existing COI guidelines, then yes, it would be appropriate to ban him from further chemistry-related topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This anaolgy does not hold water:
  1. In most cases, when there was a question of COI, THF confined himself to the talk pages. For instance, his "documentary rankings" arguments were purely on talk, and he abided by consensus, never making a single substantive article edit supporting that claim.
  2. DuPont is a corporation; THF's employer is a non-profit research organization. A better analogy would be a professor at a university citing a co-worker's research.
  3. When did he add links to his own blogs? Certainly not outside of talk pages, as far as I can tell.
  4. The COI guideline does not prohibit a user with a COI from participating in talk page debate, so I don't see where COI was "disruptively violated. ATren 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"THF's employer is a non-profit research organization" - Umm, no. They're a political lobbying organization. Raul654 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my impression that a non-profit cannot be a political lobbying organization, so the IRS might be interested in knowing that. It seems that 501(c)(3) can spend some money on lobbying, but there are strict limits on how much. I'm not an expert on this, so I could be wrong, but this quote from AEI's page seems to the same point:"As a tax-exempt educational organization governed by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AEI is generally prohibited from attempting to influence legislation in the U.S. Congress or other legislative bodies." ATren 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lobbyist (in the legal sense) is a person or organization that is paid to represent a client and interact with congressmen. A 501(c)(3) is barred from doing this. However, the lobbying that the AEI is paid to do does not meet this defintion. Rather than directly interact with Congress, the AEI is paid by moneyed interest (read: Companies opposed to Federal regulation of: the environment, public health, public safety, federal land use, etc). They offer money to global warming skeptics. The AEI "is loaded with corporate money, full of rich fellowships for Washington DC influence peddlers who wallow in plush offices figuring out how to assure corporations rule the US and the rest of the World" - Ralph Nader... "We are delighted to be members in good standing of the Washington Establishment, called upon many times each day for congressional testimony, media commentary, and advice on all manner of current poliy issues" - Christopher Deluth in the AEI's 1994 annual report. According to Washington Monthy, think tanks like the AEI "provide ideal cover for the advacement of the funder's economic or political agenda and shaping the intellecutal atmostphere... a process called 'deep lobbying'". (Note - These quotes come out of 101 people who are really screwing up America, by Jack Huberman. The AEI was #7 on the list) Raul654 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nader and Huberman are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from AEI, as is the Washington Monthly. So, yes, political opponents call them lobbyists, but the IRS apparently does not - therefore calling them "a political lobbying organization" seems POV to me. Of course, they do tend to bring in people who generally share their philosophy, but you can say the exact same thing about universities and media organizations (and, indeed, conservatives often do). I stand by my statement that AEI is more like a university than a corporation. ATren 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) NPOV is reserved for articles only. (2) The fact that the people who say it is a lobbying organization are left-of-center does not make it any less of a fact. (3) A university does not take money from from a corporation and then come out with disinformation that helps that corporation. Disinformation, - which make no mistake about it is exactly what the AEI is in business to create - is academic dishonesty. It's also a clear conflict-of-interest. No reputable university allows either. (4) not to put too fine a point on this, but you are not an arbitrator here. It is not my job to convince you to your satisfaction. It is your job to convince us, the arbitration committee, of problems with the decision. So far (5) your whole argument can be pretty much summed up as claiming that everyone except the IRS (which uses a very narrow legal definition) is wrong. Split as many hairs as you want - despite your claims otherwise, they do lobby. Raul654 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to each point: (1) Exactly, NPOV is for articles only, which is why sanctions against THF for non-article POV discussion is wrong. (2) And right wingers say the media and universities are biased to the left and impart that bias onto the public. Does that make it fact? (3) Don't universities participate in sponsored research, sometimes from corporate and/or politically affiliated entities? (4) That's what I'm trying to do here. :-) (5) No, I'm saying that citing the words of ideological opponents as fact is wrong. ATren 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are USA Today and UPI ideological opponents too?[3][4] Do universities have ideological opponents? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course they do. But it's obvious we disagree on these points, so this is my last post on this issue. I disagree with your DuPont analogy, I disagree with the blanket classification of AEI as a "lobbyist organization", and I disagree with sanctions against an editor who made most of his arguments on talk pages, no matter who he works for. And that's all I have to say about that. :-) ATren 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get a chance to respond to your initial reply regarding Shoy's DuPont analogy.
1. THF created and edited an article on the AEI's magazine. [5] He edited the AEI article, and removed criticism it (saying "per talk" though there was no consensus).[6][7][8][9] He created and edited articles on topics consistent with the tort reform POV that he is paid to promote: [10] He edited article on prominent tort lawyers.[11][12]
2. Already covered in discussion above. (If all univeristies are liberal, how is AEI like a university?)
3. An example of THF adding a link to one of his blogs: [13]
4. If THF had really restricted himself to editing talk pages we wouldn't be here.
If THF did all of this while fully aware of the COI guideline then I think he's shown he doesn't understand it and needs firmer boundaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. An article on the magazine already existed, he does not seem to have edited it out of accord with NPOV. For the AEI, (1) Yes, User:Haemo made a point of saying there was no consensus, although he agreed with removal—this could be problematic under COI, but the edit was apparently not so POV because it has never been undone since Haemo removed it "for real," (2) is Conservapedia not like Sourcewatch?, (3) THF reverted uncited off-the-cuff comments, (4) this diff removes the edit from context; he actually replaced a commented-out source with a more reliable one.[14] The others are February edits.
2. Academically independent researchers.
3. His 17th edit (out of more than 7200), and made in January before his Jance-fueled crash course in Wikipedia policy.
4. If that's so, then ArbCom should ban his mainspace edits in these topics, not a ban from the topic itself. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Ding!) I never claimed it was a fair analogy. (I'm not much into this political stuff.) Here's a question. Editor A, employed by Dupont, edits the Teflon article by adding a link to a report published by the highly-respected Non-stick Coatings Institute which claims that Teflon is the best invention since sliced bread. Accurate, well-sourced, non-POV pushing edit. Does Editor A have a conflict of interest? shoy 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Editor A, an expert chemist, adds only positive (though well-sourced) info about his company's products while removing negative info, and adds only negative (though well-sourced) info about the competitor's products, then I'd say that he is not editing neutrally. His COI may be the reason for editing in that manner, but the ultimate problem for Wikipedia isn't the COI itself, it's the non-neutral editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to topic ban everyone who edits from the perpective of a POV, even if their edits are well sourced and non-abusive? Has WP:WEIGHT been elevated to a blockable offense? Everyone has a POV, and we all tend to edit towards our POV, but that doesn't make us all POV warriors. The best we can hope to do here is to debate and discuss until we reach consensus, and those who will refuse to participate in the consensus-building are sanctioned. There is no indication in THF's edit pattern that he was unwilling to participate in this process. His pattern seems to adhere to WP:BRD, which is an accepted method of consensus gathering. Though he may have occasionally crossed the line in debates (as did others) there is no indication that he edited abusively, unless BRD is now considered abusive. ATren 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long tradition of issuing topical bans for editors who can't edit neutrally in certain fields. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true, and editors are regularly topic banned for nothing more than adding well-sourced material that supports their POV, then this is the perfect case in which to remedy that problem. :-) ATren 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting a POV with well-sourced material does not further the mission of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think ATren and THF point to what has become an accepted philosophy on Wikipedia: That there is no problem with promoting a POV or an agenda, as long as you source it to notable sources. Behind this philosophy lies the idea that "NPOV" means dualing philosophies, which is not what it means. WP:V does not trump WP:NPOV - they work together. Much of what THF puts into Wikipedia isn't factual, but a spin on facts linked to notable opinions and opinion magazines, such The National Review. This is what lies at the heart of THF's NPOV violation. Yes, someone notable said something; but no, it doesn't aid in the building of an NPOV encyclopedia. Is there a fact that the New York Times does not report that The National Review does report? Great! Add it. But opinions and spins on facts are not facts in-and-of themselves. --David Shankbone 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will: if an article over-represents one POV, do you still agree that the addition of well-sourced material opposing that POV is inappropriate? The underlying assumption here seems to be that the articles were already NPOV and therefore the addition or removal of POV material was abusive. This assertion of NPOV is, in itself, a POV. True NPOV is achieved not by decree, nor is it achieved by banning one side of the debate. Only after healthy community debate involving good faith editors on both sides of an issue can we approach a neutral article. Banning editors like THF who are willing to engage in such good faith debate (even if it was occasionally heated) certainly does not further the mission of NPOV. ATren 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that behind your question is the dualing POVs make it NPOV. Wikipedia as a concept was to try and come up with a conception of reality that is neutral, not to showcase two different versions of reality and the philosophical spin on each. This is a real problem in the thinking of many editors, yourself included. THF was removing POV and inserting his own. This was shown in the evidence. --David Shankbone 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"dueling POVs" - I never said this. I said NPOV is achieved via discussion involving good faith editors on all sides of the dispute. This may or may not result in "dueling POVs" - in some cases, it may lead to removal of claims, in other cases, it may lead to softening or rewording of phrases. WP:BRD is one accepted way of triggering that kind of discussion - and the "B" stands for bold. You will note that most of THF's article-space edits cited as evidence in this case were isolated changes - bold edits by THF that were followed not by revert warring, but rather talk page discussion. This is textbook BRD. The problem occurs later, when editors who opposed him aggregate all the "B"s together across 7000 edits, making it look a lot more incriminating than it ever was at the time. ATren 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's re-writing history. "Bold" moves by THF, such as on Robert Bork were POV edits. "Bold" moves on Jim Hood were edit wars over, in CHL's words, a "BLP disaster". --David Shankbone 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that any one POV editor does not promote an NPOV encyclopedia, but on controversial topics editors with a POV will make the majority of edits whether we wish they cared more about impartiality or not. (Take Ann Coulter, please!) When all significant views are represented, the resulting entry is thickly annotated and actually quite NPOV. If we were to systemically remove editors of a certain POV from some topics (as Raul has proposed with climate change), we sould actually disservice the project. Frankly, Sicko, which advocates political views, should include political criticism. THF brought a familiarity of published criticism to the table, and I think the article has been improved by the mere mention of critiques that Sicko's previous contributers showed no interest in adding. THF cares to write an NPOV encyclopedia by focusing on subjects where conservative views were not included. Some editors have a clear POV, but like THF can properly source contributions and remove nonsense even when it's on "their side".[15] (from Atren's evidence, compare previous arbitration—the ability to remove vandalism and pro-"your side" nonsense from an article, like THF does, demonstrates a concern for the encyclopedia). Cool Hand Luke 03:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Sicko benefited from criticism, but both THF and User:Noroton wanted to make this film article into a lengthy diatribe against Michael Moore and the film. Look at this version (I use the one where THF puts an "article under editing" tag up to show he and Noroton were in collusion): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sicko&oldid=153568484. At the point, the article is over half criticism, and Noroton wasn't finished - he was blocked for removing MichaelMoore.com (again). When Noroton was blocked, THF left a 'Chin up, compatriot, and stand down against the unfair application of policy on Wikipedia' message on Noroton's talk page. This was after consensus was reached to not remove MichaelMoore.com (though note there THF questions that consensus). THF wanted to include criticism of the WHO, which does not belong on an article about Sicko. That is again a WP:WEIGHT problem. --David Shankbone 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your links speak for themselves. Note that they had just finished the merger of a lengthy criticism fork in the first, and that THF was telling Noronton that his block was deserved in the second. In any case, it in no way undermines the premise that THF cared for the encyclopedia. As you described, you had to pluck these few "damaging" diffs out of hundreds of vandalism reverts and third-party noticeboard participation. Cool Hand Luke 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're both incorrect. Cool Hand Luke, you're slightly incorrect in that it was not a criticism fork; it was an article about the controversies around Sicko (including criticism) that dealt with political issues and questions about accuracy (which were discussed together in all or nearly all the many sources). That defunct article about a debate (in which numerous serious commentators participated) was scrupulously NPOV in that it included both criticisms and defense of the film, including Moore's own defense wherever I could get it, the criticisms that Moore's defenders made and the positive comments about the film that even Moore's critics made. (David Shankbone, you yourself supported [16] the controversies article as a separate article -- was that because you thought it was a diatribe? You could have just supported merger and the inevitable cutting down of the "lengthy diatribe".) If you look back into the history of Sicko you'll find that I not only added -- in a balanced way -- criticism and defense of Moore's film, but also added as much as I could to the description section because I thought lots of detail was important in helping readers understand it. Every detail I added must be considered favorable to the film. Argue all you want, but cut the crap about me or my work. I'm damn proud of my NPOV edits. As for "collusion", THF's placing the "in editing" tag was, I believe, the only time we actually worked "together" (not that there's a thing wrong with that) although I didn't ask for THF's help. I did ask his advice on occasion and both THF and I believed the Sicko article should include criticism because, well, the criticism existed and was prominent and therefore was needed in order to actually have that thing we call NPOV. Capisce? David Shankbone, this arbitration proceeding has shown that you (and many others) have examined THF's edits in granular detail, so you well know that "collusion" was not quite the best description of the relationship between me and him, even as regards that article. He actually disagreed with the controversies article existing and thought that what I was adding to the article was something that should be drastically cut down. And we didn't quite get along, either. David Shankbone, you owe me an apology. I believe the technical term that best characterizes your description of my edits can be found (definition in the second paragraph, first sentence), here. Noroton 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You judge NPOV not on individual edits or even all of an editor's edits but on how each individual article looks after the editor is done changing it. Therefore an editor might make ONLY edits that promote a certain point of view and yet, if those edits are added to articles that needed that point of view (or needed to have some other point of view cut back, or needed rewriting for NPOV), the editor would not be POV pushing. Citing diffs, therefore, can be extremely misleading: Whatever diff you follow, you've got to look at the article as it was after the editor was done with it. Context is everything. An editor could potentially promote a particular point of view with every single edit but, if those edits were only to articles that would remain otherwise biased, the editor would be improving the encyclopedia -- by making its articles more NPOV. Noroton 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the point above your last: [THF] thought that what I was adding to the article was something that should be drastically cut down. That is entirely untrue. THF pressed for drastically more criticism, not less -- he twice recommended that you merge the page without loss, before settling for the "vast majority" of sourced criticism. But you were so intent on retaining a separate page to notice the nature of the advice he was offering you. THF tolerated your discourtesy longer than necessary mainly because you had crafted something of value to him. I'm not sure you understand this even now. smb 04:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's original concerns

This back-and-forth is interesting, although it has become a bit sterile by now, but has wandered considerably from the concerns I expressed when I started this thread, which remain very real to me. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define what these concerns are? What real world impact is? I guess I do not see where your concerns have any foundation. --David Shankbone 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Newyorkbrad's concerns , I would think that there'd be support for blanking the workshop and talk pages when the case is finished. The final decision can omit THF's full name. While reasonable people differ on the positive and negative aspects of his participation here, no one is saying he's behaved scandalously. This isn't a Mary Rosh-type situation. One of the main concerns is that he has promoted his POV too actively. That may be an insult to an encyclopedia editor but it's a compliment to a lawyer or a pundit. I doubt there'll be anything in the final decision that'd be embarrassing to any of the parties, even if it includes bans. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think blanking the talk pages would be counter-productive when one of his primary concerns concerns is that the proposed findings and remedies offer little analysis about conflicts of interest. Cool Hand Luke 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the current finding of fact regarding COI is rather anemic when it comes to actual analysis and evidence. shoy 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are still correct. The measures are draconian and unsupported by the evidence. as an aside, no one is claiming he edited the AEI article which is the example everyone uses for COI. THF did not edit any article to which he has an vested interest. Only in the broadest sense are his real world employment and Michael Moore related. It's accusation is just as broad as claiming voters can't edit political articles. --DHeyward 01:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been paying attention. He edited the AEI article, he created, edited and linked on four separate pages the AEI magazine's article, The American (magazine), although he represented Merck in litigation over Vioxx he edited all the articles that deal with that issue. He included links to his blog articles. Please review the evidence before commenting because at this stage of the game it is getting tiresome to repeat the same arguments and raise the same evidence over and over again. --David Shankbone 01:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could have politely pointed that out without scolding him... ATren 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the magazine article already existed for months, although you sought deletion in the face of unanimous disagreement; the last time he linked to his blog appears to have been February (or perhaps its his 17th edit from January, cited above), before Jance encouraged a crash course in COI, and ATren has dealt with the few mainspace edits flagged below. For an editor of 7200 edits, his NPOV track record isn't bad. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The measures of retribution relate to the very broad categories of health care, michael moore and global warming. Your examples are very narrow yet you want to apply it as a broad indication of COI. It's a non sequitir argument. --DHeyward 18:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COI is only one issue; the other is violation of WP:NPOV, one of our basic principles and policies. For a full listing, you can go here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_David_Shankbone --David Shankbone 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it. Your NPOV section doesn't appear to include any complaints that would support any of the topic ban remedies of health care, michael moore, or global warming. --DHeyward 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only proposed a mutual disengagement from Michael Moore related articles; between my evidence, smb's evidence, THF's published hit piece on Michael Moore, his desire and effort to insert into 25 film article that hit piece, and THF's efforts to have MichaelMoore.com de-linked from Wikipedia, I think there is plenty of evidence to support his inability to be NPOV on those articles. --David Shankbone 13:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the article seems to be in better shape than before THF arrived. All that extraneous stuff doesn't matter as long as the article doesn't suffer, and in this case, the article actually got better. ATren 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't get better because of THF, it got better because of a collaboration of editors, many of whom found THF was a hindrance to reaching consensus, not a help. --David Shankbone 13:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And before THF got involved, the intro said nothing about the controversy. No mention of controversy for a film that appeared almost as much on news and editorial pages as it did on film review pages. There was no impetus to change the intro before THF arrived, and there was initially resistance to change it even after he came to the article. There's no evidence that the old intro would have changed without THF's input. From my perspective, THF's POV had a positive effect on the article, because it now reflects the reasonable criticism that has been directed at the movie. ATren 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, 1) there were two controversies on the page when THF was involved; 2) the film had only been open a week when THF got involved; 3) we aren't here to POV war in hopes of improving the articles, that goes against all of the fundamental principles of writing this encyclopedia, although I have already noted you are a proponent of POV warring, and you just reiterated that belief; 4) Smb's evidence more than clearly illustrates the problems we encountered with THF's edits on Sicko. Ends don't justify means, and there is plenty of evidence recently that without THF the article would have continued to improve, as all of our articles do. THF wasn't the keystone. He was an obstacle. --David Shankbone 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the Sicko talk page and search on "lead" - you will find a huge debate over adding a sentence to the lead, mentioning that some were critical of this film's portrayal of US and Canadian health care. This criticism was notable and had rock-solid sources, from the Washington Post to the Toronto Star, and it still had to go all the way to RFC. THF was the primary editor pushing for inclusion... it is very hard for me to believe that it would have changed without his involvement. Indeed, I just looked at the article, and someone has already reverted most of the criticism from the lead, so it would seem that in THF's absense, the article is already floating back to it's previous non-critical state. Now, if you believe that it is NPOV to omit mention of criticism in the lead paragraph of the article on one of the most debate-provoking films of the year, then I can see where you'd have a problem. Otherwise, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than THF's involvement was beneficial. ATren 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the concerns

A piece of Newyorkbrad's concerns is

  • Given that THF is widely understood to be a well-known attorney and policy analyst in real life, and the fact that his real-life identity is widely known ... a formal conclusion by the Arbitration Committee that THF violated Wikipedia conflict-of-interest policies bears the potential to be thrown in this former editor's face and used against him in real-world contexts.

It seems to me that ArbCom is a bit stalled over this one, and I do not offer an opinion on CoI. However, the point quoted above, well-intended as it may have been, asks the arbitrators to set a different standard for evaluating the editor's on-wiki behavior based on the editor's off-wiki profession, then for evaluating the behavior of other editors. This would be a serious error. Jd2718 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you make of the COI guideline? Cool Hand Luke 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Not interesting. What I do think, is whether or not CoI as understood is a good guideline, and whether or not THF violated that guideline, THF knew he was close to the line, knew that he was not guaranteed anonymity... A reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of realworld problem that Newyorkbrad is explaining. And ArbCom should not be influenced by that risk. Jd2718 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The COI guideline seems to be precisely about treating an editor's behavior differently "based on the editor's off-wiki profession." If you're saying that THF should not be sanctioned for behavior besides what he would be sanctioned for under WP:NPOV and other policies, then I agree, but I don't think that's what you mean. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying - no, that's not what I am saying. We disagree. ArbCom should not be afraid of saying "CoI" (if they think that is the correct thing to say) just because it could hurt THF in real life. Jd2718 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree somewhat with Jd here, that the decision should not be affected by concerns about hurting THF. However, I'll add two points: (1) I happen to believe the COI charge is completely baseless, as THF has shown every effort to comply by the rules and policies of the encyclopedia - so there's no need for special treatment in that regard (IMO, of course), and (2) I do think extra care should be taken to get the decision right, given that this user freely identified himself and put his own reputation at stake.
Having said all that, I'm much more concerned about the effects of this decision on the encyclopedia than on THF. THF will be fine, he's a big boy, but I'm very concerned about the overexuberant application of COI that seems be happening in this case. I believe that COI is being used too often as a battering ram against expert editors who freely identify themselves, and an arbcom decision supporting such a practice would make the situation worse. ATren 12:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, one of my concerns (I've expressed several) is that the decision could have real-world repercussions against an identified individual who is no longer editing anyway. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "legalistic behavior"

While "overciting" policy is considered an issue (but only in that it makes you look like a policy wank), I've always thought lawyering was a problem when one tried to apply legalistic concepts (e.g. "due process") when they are inappropriate. Circeus 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy violation; it's just not effective. Thus the advice to talk to other editors rather than citing policies. Fred Bauder 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. It's that "legalistic bahavior" calls a very different behavior to me than what was being meant. Circeus 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding 4B

The evidence cited in finding 4B is flawed:

  • Helms' report - This was originally published in the Wall Street Journal [17]. When the claim was reverted, THF did not re-insert it, though others have later argued it should be included. A claim sourced to the WSJ is hardly controversial, even if Helms and THF happened to work together.
  • AEI video link - this was a suggested external link THF posted on the talk page, and which THF himself later reverted to avoid hassle.
  • "replacing a reliable source with his own original-research list of most profitable documentaries (which included the Jackass and Eddie Murphy stand-up as documentaries) in an effort to play-down the success of Sicko." - THF made no substantial article space edit regarding this issue. His arguments were completely confined to the talk page, and he accepted the RFC consensus not to include it.

The finding further cites smb's evidence. I looked at that evidence, and did a quick count of the diffs provided: out of approximately 22 THF edits listed by smb, only 8 were mainspace edits:

    • [18][19] - liberal FAIR should be labelled consistently with how conservative groups are labelled
    • [20] - NPOV tag
    • [21] - not THF's edit (see below)
    • [22] - the Wall Street Journal sourced claim (see above)
    • [23] - claim sourced to John Stossel (is he any less reliable than FAIR?)
    • [24] - created Uninsured in America article (later merged by DavidShankBone into Stuart Browning)
    • [25] - added Uninsured in America link to the Sicko article.

This is the sum total of article space diffs presented by smb, and I find nothing extraordinary. This finding seems to be based solely on talk page debates. ATren 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, cited above, is not my edit. It's User:Wikitruth.[26] THF 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence storage (talk • contribs) [reply]

Finding 7

This finding falsely states that I am employed by a political advocacy group. I am not employed by a political advocacy group. See the relevant Wikipedia entry on US law, which was reflected in the American Enterprise Institute article[27] before an arbitrator made a NPOV-violative edit that removed that information. If there is going to be a factually incorrect finding that my employer is a "political advocacy group," I request that that be made a separate finding of fact, and the basis for that finding be clearly stated so that the political bias of the arbitrators who come to that incorrect conclusion is demonstrated. THF 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But Ralph Nader and Jack Huberman agree that they're lobbyists! Just because they're leftists, doesn't mean it isn't true[28]—RS and NPOV don't apply to nakedly political arbitrators, much less their findings of fact, so there should indeed be a specific finding.
A separate finding would at least make the proposed remedy logical. Lobbyists certainly shouldn't edit on behalf of their clients. That fact that you're not a lobbyist and don't really have clients is immaterial—at least Wikipedia would get some clear COI guidance. To wit: political editing by individuals associated with groups opposed by Ralph Nader is hereby prohibited. Cool Hand Luke 04:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the eminent scholar Jack Huberman[29]. Who knew that the "N" in "NPOV" really stood for "Nader"? Arbitrators should state this as a proposed principle so editors and readers can avoid mistakenly believing that Wikipedia is neutral. THF 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence storage (talk • contribs)

This finding also references finding 4B, which is dead wrong (see my analysis of this finding, above). If passed, findings 4B and 7 would be damning evidence that THF is indeed correct in his accusations of bias, especially given Raul's obvious bias and his refusal to recuse himself from this case. I am holding out hope that the other arbitrators take a closer look at the evidence, and put aside their own biases in evaluating this case. ATren 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ATren, I suggest you give it a rest. You are shadowing my edits and almost all of your edits relate to this case and the actors in it (despite your protestations that you are not involved in it). At this point, most of the arguments have been made and it's just time for the arbitrators to decide. Your continually coughing up regurgitated arguments you've made several times over isn't helping. Give it a rest and find something else to do for awhile, and stop shadowing me and my work I am doing on other Wikimedia projects. It could be considered harassment, as we've all seen. --David Shankbone 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed_decision&oldid=160946993"