Statement by Picaroon[edit]

I endorse Prodego's words. Although this may seem like a content dispute, it goes far beyond that. With BenBurch and FAAFA on one side and Bryan and his multitudinous sockpuppets on the other (I make no secret of the fact that I think DeanHinnen is Bryan's sockpuppet, regardless of the fact that he's tricked some into believing him a meatpuppet instead) this war has been going on since at least November. The article is a mess, Foundation personnel have become involved, and at least one external (non-Wikimedia) party has been drawn in. The parties are downright hostile to eachother, and the pots and kettles are both the color of coal; I'd go so far as to class one of them as one Wikipedia's top most disruptive not-yet-banned users.

The arbcom needs to step in to (a) determine if bans are needed for the other disputants, (b) determine if Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine evading his community ban, and (c) ratify Bryan's community ban. Article probation would be almost an after-thought, but it is probably a good idea too. Among the policies violated at one time or another by the aforementioned parties are WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, and WP:NPA. Picaroon 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Durova[edit]

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

Statement by peripherally involved Merzbow[edit]

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

Statement by frustrated Daniel.Bryant[edit]

This is a case ArbCom has to accept. At one stage around a fortnight ago, there was seven threads on AN/ANI, most retaliatory to other threads, by these four users.

If that wasn't bad enough, the absolute plethora of retalation in the form of Checkuser requests sums it up nicely.

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DeanHinnen
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BenBurch
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

The constant harrasment by both parties against one another via both AN(I) and RFCU is staggering. I urge ArbCom to accept this, possibly even in a speedily manner. Daniel.Bryant 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Physicq210[edit]

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

Statement by User:JzG[edit]

We've tried telling them to leave each other alone, we've tried telling them not to edit the article, we've tried speedily closing their vexatious processes, and they carry on. It's an off-Wiki fight brought to Wikipedia. BryanFromPalatine was the worst offender, and DeanHinnen has already posted by proxy on his behalf into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch. We also have the deleted BenBurch, another attempt at vexatious process.

All three have emailed me off list (and presumably others as well). BenBurch and FAAFA have been less overt about soliciting actions against Hinnen than vice-versa, and less assertive, cf. "there is an RfC, can you help" versus "foo is edit-warring". I am also bound to point out that BenBurch's response to being told to butt out is generally "sorry, will do" (see above and the recent thread on WP:ANI [1], whereas Hinnen's is reliably to start arguing how the problem is actually the other two. This may simply reflect the fact that FAAFA and BenBurch have been around a bit longer and know that "but it was him!" does not work well with the parent of two pre-teen sons; I have heard it all before.

What follows is strictly opinion: BenBurch and FAAFA seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back, but this may be because in general they have the upper hand. One thing's for sure: it's not going to end without enforceable sanctions. DeanHinnen is not quite right that we are likely to block all three, since the other two seem to have some history of non-disruptive edits, whereas all of the Hinnen brothers' edits appear to be to political subjects and to reflect their highly partisan views (although again neither side is innocent of this).

DeanHinnen's relentless Wikilawyering and pursuit of his vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA is a large part of the problem. It is clear that he has made it his business to hound them off the project one way or another. Most of his statement above shows precisely this agenda: he wants rid of them because he hates their edits to Free Republic, a site to which he has a known and significant connection. I see absolutely no evidence at any point that Hinnen is prepared to work for compromise, only towards getting rid of BenBurch and FAAFA. They, in their turn, gleefully provoked Bryan into self-destruction (in which he proved a willing participant) and seem to be looking forward to doing the same with Dean.

Ben's statement above is representative of his tone in my dealings with him. In fact, all three are representative: Ben is saying he'll leave well alone, FAAFA describes the dispute showing Hinnen in a bad light, and Hinnen asserts that it's everybody else's fault while continuing to beat the long-dead horse of the sockpuppet case. Cards on the table: I don't really believe him either. A brand new user, at the same IP, piling into the same disputes with the same viewpoint and the same agenda, with zero overlap, and where the supposed brother is a known sockpuppeteer? Maybe it is a different person, but for all the difference we can see it might as well not be.

Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tbeatty[edit]

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

--Tbeatty 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement of Tbeatty's comments by Uninvolved Observer Blaxthos[edit]

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

Statement by peripherally involved User:Grand Slam 7[edit]

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

Statement by User:Yamla[edit]

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

Statement by User:Lar[edit]

I was also involved in the unblock discussions on unblock-en-l and advocated that Dean be unblocked (based on the narrow case presented that he was not a sockpuppet, which was demonstrated to my satisfaction, including by emails to and from me via a work address). Yamla has it just right, he was civil there, unfailingly so, but our decision was a narrow one, not a overall vindication of anything. Dean has, in my view, in some places, acted like he was vindicated in everything because we decided that it was likely he was not a sockpuppet. Subsequent to the unblock I was among the people that warned, counseled, and advised Dean, [2], [3], [4], [5] ... multiple times, that he needed to change his approach. It was my intent to have no further involvement, but I have had some talk page traffic advocating and restating that claim is the last, and some email correspondence from Dean, FAAFA and others (which I will not share publicly without permission, but will make available to ArbCom members on request, but it was garden variety advocacy that I get involved, or advocacy of the rightness or wrongness of the position of various other participants). I had hoped that this matter was not going to come to ArbCom, that community efforts, up to and including the comprehensive set of restrictions referenced by JzG and others, would suffice, and I was intending to advocate that the case be rejected, and the community deal with this. I'm still hopeful that perhaps that would work, and since they seem to be running concurrently, perhaps a go slow approach is called for here, the community may yet deal with this... ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jossi[edit]

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

Statement by User:Gamaliel[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent [www.freerepublic.com/aldridgeinjunction.htm injunction] against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [6] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [7] [8] [9] see edit summary [10] [11] see edit summary [12] [13] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD.[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

• vile
• hateful
• besmirching Christian values
• some pretty sick people posting
• inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
• racist and homophobic
• poor moderation
• victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [25] [26] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that "Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're stuck with this one, Brad. The previous article probation was advisory only, stating that the situation would be reviewed upon motion of an Arbitrator or request from an editor. After a very cursory review there is nothing in Eschoir's recent history that would be disruptive enough for a page ban in the absence of previous DR, and as you know community-enforced page bans are still somewhat novel. Thatcher 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly BryanfromPalatine, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

"Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Newyorkbrad said: "With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion." Eschoir has offered no comments about his editing history. I suggest that some explanation of his editing history is called for here, in light of the many troublesome diffs I've posted here. But Eschoir remains silent. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outing, harassment[edit]

Samurai Commuter placed links here to Freerepublic.com, linking to harassing and outing of Wikipedia editors here. I removed it and mailed oversight. It looks like there are other things like that on that message board. Is it appropriate for users to be linking there? Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the editor "Samurai Commuter" is the banned editor "BryanFromPalatine", based on the comments and actions on this page. See also this evidence in a current RFAR: here. The user has asked me to restore a modified version of his 'evidence' to this section, but I am disinclined to do so as I have mailed Oversight to have it removed for exposing personal information about other editors here. Lawrence Cohen 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of ArbCom evidence, claiming that I posted links to personal information about Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum, for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. Eschoir then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.

I posted two links to online court documents, proving that Eschoir's narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Wikipedia that took time to compile, and proved Eschoir's continued disruptive activity and edit warring. If privacy was really the issue, it would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and leave a pleasant note on my User Talk page. Instead, Lawrence Cohen blanked the entire section, reported me as a single purpose attack account, and had me blocked indefinitely. He is now refusing to restore the evidence section he deleted, or even discuss the matter. Please see his User Talk page.

I'd appreciate a ruling on this at ArbCom's convenience. By admitting that he is the real person in question, by prevaricating about the federal injunction against him, and by continuing his efforts to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter, Eschoir has opened the door to this discussion. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a copy of any information that you believe was wrongfully blanked to the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail. Please also respond to the assertion that you are the same individual as the banned user BrianFromPalatine. If you are, you are still entitled to have your concern with the article considered if you submit it by e-mail, but you should not be posting on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on User:Samurai Commuter's concerns, but the accounts 52 edits all seem to be related to this subject. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a disagreement on content, we're asked to work it out on the article's Talk page. My reward for trying to do that is the suggestion that I'm an SPA. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I have some info on this regarding BrionfromPalatine that you may want. It is nothing you can't get yourself, but since I have been involved with this page for a while I can give you an idea of the general situation if you would like. Email me if you would like that. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward any relevant information that is not suitable for posting on-wiki to the Arbitration Committee mailing list (see WP:AC for address or e-mail to me for forwarding). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to anyone keeping score on this particular drama, I have blocked both Eschoir (talk · contribs) and Samurai Commuter (talk · contribs) pursuant to mutual 3RR requests at WP:AN3. I went over the diffs closely and there's nothing blatantly disruptive on either side that would be an exemption to 3RR limitations. The whole article is a cesspool, but that's beside the point. As always, if I have missed something, feel free to adjust my actions accordingly. --B (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

This remedy, passed on the Free Republic RfArb, unfortunately has lacked teeth, and the page has had to be protected for numerous edit wars between Eschoir (who has a conflict of interest after being involved in legal action initated by Free Republic) and several accounts, largely believed to be sock or meat puppets of community banned (and ArbCom endorsed Ban) User:BryanFromPalatine. See this edit for evidence submitted by :Lawrence Cohen as a report requested by CheckUser User:Lar. I'd like to formally request that the Arbitration Committee modify the above sanction in the following way.

Proposed sanction

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any uninvolved administrator. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

Proposed sanction 2.1

The standard article probation wording seems to have been developed after the Free Republic case. It would be:

Free Republic is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from Free Republic and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Additionally, I support SirFozzie's request for better enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen[edit]

(In response to Jehochman 2.1):
Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other prior discussion[edit]

Esteemed SirFozzie: I certainly do not wish to appear disputatious, but when was it determined that I have a current COI with anybody? What evidence was taken and who heard it? It was formerly determined, and I will allow, that I had a COI, seven years ago. France had a COI with Germany in 1940, but I believe that dispute settled, too, and the French may edit the Merkel page to this day. Eschoir (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you picked the wrong World War as your analogy, Eschoir. The Germans had a COI with France in 1914, and most of the world thought that dispute was settled in 1918. But the Germans held a grudge for more than two decades. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. On the Talk page, Shibumi2's description of your editing agenda is right on the money. You're trying to take out everything good, and stuff in everything bad. I have a COI because I hate Freepers. I know better than to edit that article. You should too. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8.1) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.. Look familiar? SirFozzie (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. There was a hearing a year ago, evidence taken, and a formal finding published, which you have reproduced here. That finding did not include finding a current COI, though it could have. Now, though nothing has changed since that finding, the sockpuppets want another bite at the apple, or rather, want to bypass the former finding through wave upon wave of suicide sockpuppets ready to be bannned for the cause keeping up a constant drumbeat of COI! COI! until it becomes a fait accompli, which practice has succeeded somewhat in coloring your opinion without hearing from me.Eschoir (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made that decision all on my own.. Someone who has been in legal conflict with another organization isn't quite the best person to write about that person. It's like asking Greenpeace to write the article on the Exxon Valdez. I have noted many times that all the other accounts on the other side are likely to be related in many ways to BryanFromPalatine, even if it can't be substantiated. Wikipedia is not a Battleground, and that's what we have on our hands here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that it wasn't a battleground from the time Freedomaintfree was banned till six months later when Shibumi2 restored a previous sock's version? Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a period when you were editing the article all by yourself, and turned it into what Samurai Commuter accurately described as a "bitter little personal blog of a banned Freeper" and a "poison pen letter to Jim Robinson." It's hard to have a battleground when there's only one person present. As for your claim about "another bite of the apple," there is abundant new evidence that (A) you are incapable of overcoming your COI, and (B) you can't leave the article and related pages (such as MD4Bush Incident) alone as I have done without being given a proper incentive. I hate Freepers. That's why I never edited that article and never will. I admit that I have a COI. Since there is abundant new evidence to support additional action by ArbCom in this matter, through no one's fault but your own, ArbCom should take action. I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to all the parties who have ably demonstrated to ArbCom why this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed Neutral Good, he just announced a wikibreakEschoir (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project.

That sure reads like: You've got a really nice little night club here, Vinnie, I'd hate to see anythin' bad happen to it. Extortion is such a harsh word. Eschoir (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if ArbCom can or will take this up. I'm all for being WP:ROGUE and settling the matter myself if need be, but I wanted to give ArbCom the chance to look at their finding and see if it needs to be updated first. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this discussion took place prior to the new format, and is in a threaded style which is now not in use. Future comments in individual sections. Thanks! - FT2

Statement by Eschoir[edit]

(In response to Proposed Motion):
I support all except this quibble

editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest,

I may be wrong or just presumptuous, but COI is a term of art, with a particular definition meant to describe a factual state. Using language such as 'may reasonably be percieved as having a COI' would would equate opinion with fact. A 'reasonable' standard is less stringent than a 'preponderance' standard, and certainly not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Recast the sentence thus: "Editors who are or may reasonably be perceived as being pregnant . . ." and see how absurd that standard is.

"All editors" means all editors. The gloss on SPAs and COIs is unnecessary, and potentially harmful, and I urge thoughtful reflection before adoption of such language.Eschoir (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Eschoir

1. All editors are strongly urged to do this. (Because it's a communal norm.)
2. Users who have a focus on that article specifically, and therefore may draw concern as to their neutrality from others (whether accurate or not), and also editors who actually in the real world do have a conflict of interest, and also editors who may not have a conflict of interest but where it is likely given their edits that a reasonable person may feel concern due to the perceptions arising from those edits, are being particularly reminded to do so, since they are considered more likely to run into such issues (due to prior disruption there) and therefore should take especial care to avoid doing so.

I have no problem with any of those statements. The issue is, can the community use them to deal with the issue. My feeling is they can. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting[edit]

Motion:

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Per discussion above and previously on this page as well as evidence and proposals submitted in the Waterboarding case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Has more likelihood of sufficient teeth, and allows for review if not. Modified one word: "closely related article" to "closely related page", noting this wording may include their talk pages and project pages also.[reply]
3. Hope this helps make the articles more in compliance with our core content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. More powers for administrators in this article are needed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse, which I guess works the same. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]