Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators

Arbitrators participating in this case:

  • Charles Matthews
  • Flcelloguy
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon (recused)
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Matthew Brown (Morven)
  • Paul August
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany

There are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so the majority is 6. (Blngyuen is away; Raul 654 is inactive; Mackensen, appointed after the case was accepted, is considered not to be participating unless he states otherwise.) Updated by Newyorkbrad, 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eschoir

We've not seen much of Eschoir, and a restriction at this stage looks a bit premature, but I see no problem with his being cautioned or advised to seek mentorship to avoid the problems inherent in Internet disputants coming to Wikipedia. Past experience indicates that most will either explode rapidly and be banned, or learn and be acceptable contributors. Long-term disruption would justify an ArbCom restriction, but he's only been here a few days. Not that I care overmuch, since he's bringing his fight here I confidently expect him to go out in a blaze of disruptive glory when he finds his edits challenged, but shouldn't we at least give him a chance? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say, it would be premature. You'll find I play by the rules (once I find out what the rules are!) Eschoir 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the proposed decision

The findings put forth in the proposed decision are inaccurate, biased in that they concentrate on the negative and don't accurately document any good faith efforts such as mediation, and POV. They either intentionally or inadvertently omit key facts and studied opinions, such as:

1] The crucial and important statement by Admin Jossi who was highly involved with all the editors on a daily basis for a period of several weeks during mediation. He commented on the good faith efforts of the involved editors - efforts which were derailed by "abusive sockpuppetry" from The Hinnens. Statement by Jossi

2] This cursory finding also ignores the fact that there was a compromise version which was written collaboratively with help from Admin Jossi, arrived at by consensus, and okayed by Admin Jossi Compromise Version. This version contained considerable critical material, more than now, and sources deemed RS V at the time that are now being referred to as unreliable and partisan. Note my own comments on the compromise version, as well : "Still way too much OR, unsubstantiated FR claims, and links to FR." (bolding in my orginal comments)

3] The sock puppet account persona using the name 'DeanHinnen' has now been proven to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Bryan Hinnen. -link- Ben Burch and I (among others) were prescient enough to know this within a few days of this account 'joining', due to our weeks of dealing with Bryan's sockpuppets. Any and all lapses of NPA and CIVIL on my part against 'DeanHinnen' must be viewed in light of the fact that 'DeanHinnen' was merely another of Bryan Hinnens 6+ RFCU confirmed sock puppets, and WP:AGF actually allowed suspension of GF up until 2/17/07. AGF of 2/16/07 included; "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Documented at: diff 2/17 - FaAfA (yap) 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is when things get heated up that courtesy is most important. Fred Bauder 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't your stated opinion when MONGO was rude to ED trolls, and people who disagreed with him over the events of 9/11. Please address points 1 and 2. Thanks - Free FaAfA ! (yap) 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was rude to the ED "trolls"...I thought it was the other way around...can you show me anywhere that Dean or anyone else has accused you of being a pedophile, as the "ED trolls" accused me? Thanks.--MONGO 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
MONGO - as distasteful as I found that ED article, it WAS satire, and ArbCom ruled it as such 5-0. "(ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Wikipedia. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes." - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I saw the humor in it...haha. As far as the wording in that particular finding, I thought that was the funniest part of it all. Besides, it's not like they limited their attacks to their website, and nothing done by Dean or anyone else against you is anywhere remotely comparable to what I endured.--MONGO 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the time period is at least twice as long as it should be for FAAFA - Yes, he is abrasive, but I think he can learn to channel that. --BenBurch 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. CWC(talk) 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't accept FAAFA's "proof" that he has posted on his own web site. How are we to be sure that this "proof" wasn't manufactured? --rogerd 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That's his website? Can we get a checkuser on Apj-us-nyc (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)? --Tbeatty 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The writing style certainly seems familiar. Ironic title for the piece too. - Crockspot 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish I wrote as well as Gene! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that FAAFA is in any way associated with APJ. Though certainly they have similar attitudes towards Dean Hinnen. Honestly, it is hard for ME not to treat him in just that manner because I hate cheaters and I see sock ban evasion as cheating. --BenBurch 15:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at more of the nuances of speech of one of the writers there, rather than any specific attitude he holds. - Crockspot 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ben on this. I really don't think that FAAFA & APJ are related. Having said this, Im not persuaded that the "proof" really rises to the level of proof. While it is certainly plausable, it could easily be manufactured (as Rogerd suggests) and it appears that APJ(the website) is quite a partisian source. Dman727 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it is proof that we do not need to see as there is ample reason to believe there is a meat puppet relationship. --BenBurch 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke Eschoir 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Posting Times for apj

Undid revision by NewYorkBrad - evidence of Beatty's hounding, harassment, and paranoia are important to this proceeding FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

These Dovetail nicely. FAAFA

  • 13:24, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (replaced ref 1, non rs v blog with The Age) (top)
  • 13:20, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (→The Flight 93 National Memorial - added RCP and LGF - zombie credits them in his article as raising the issue first)
  • 13:11, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (added pro israel, anti abortion)
  • 13:03, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern) (top)
  • 12:41, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (rewrote intro to reflect reality. his most current report is on an art gallery opening!)
  • 12:23, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern)

apj

  • 12:37, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed) (top)
  • 12:35, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed)
  • 12:31, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Evidence presented by American Politics Journal)
  • 12:28, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Regarding Dean Hinnen)
[Heck, I wasn't even aware of the WP article on Zombietime (which FAFAA must have been posting to after breakfast while I was leaving for or out to lunch). Useful stuff. Thanks for the heads-up, Tbeatty! -- Apj-us-nyc 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)]

And FAAFA

  • 13:23, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)
  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)

apj

  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Apj.jpg (→Licensing) (top)
  • 13:07, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)
  • 13:06, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)

--Tbeatty 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow TB ! We're both online at the same time ! Maybe you should post your suspicions to the Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard ! LOL ! Hey Beatty - you know how y'all fear the Trilateral Commission ? APJ + FaAfA might actually be the Bicoastal Commission (dues paying members of the NWO and the nefarious evil-doers secretly creating those dastardly chemtrails that you see and fear all the time - We use our private fleet of Black helicopters)! Thicker foil is recommended for your hat TB! LOL ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I have actually tried to AVOID posting when you do, FAAFA, for fear that somebody would make just this sort of allegation that I was you somehow. People post at about the same times because we almost all rise near sunrise and sleep at night. Sheesh. --BenBurch 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speak for yourself! The only time I see sunrise or anything close is if I've stayed up all night! I'm a degenerate inveterate night owl! ;-) FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Beatty's now claiming I'm in NYC! BWAAHH! Shot down by my black helicopter! LOL ! (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though !FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

Once again I am constrained to observe that this thread does not seem likely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I consider myself lucky Beatty didn't accuse me of killing lots of innocent people who dare to oppose me, like he wrote that Bill Clinton did ! LOL ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made no such accusation and your conduct and mischaracterization is the reason we are here today. --Tbeatty 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You both need to drop this. --BenBurch 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. SirFozzie 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried dropping it and was reverted. You only have to look at the page history to see how many edits I have made. But I'm done with this thread. --Tbeatty 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[Translation: The time zone distance! It buuuurns! It buuuuurns!] -- Apj-us-nyc 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's conspiratorial defamatory foil-hat worthy accusations can be found here diff - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP addresses Ben and FAFFA sent me emails from are different, and are not located in the same area. I hope you guys don't mind me saying that, but it seems it can't hurt, and will help. I followed the 'checkuser' method of replying. Prodego talk 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to you saying that whatsoever. --BenBurch 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Er... Prodego..... I believe that Tbeatty was suspicious and paranoid that APJ and I were sockpuppets of each other, not Ben and I. I hope TB will be kind enough to explain the difference between contrails and chemtrails to me - I always get the two confused, and I think he's an expert on the subject! FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well contrails are condensed water produced by jet engines, and chemtrails are trails of chemicals dropped by aircraft. I am telling you, since you are interested, and I know that you wouldn't make any personal attacks. Especially considering I have already warned you twice. I am addressing Ben's message about not editing at the same time as you, because of fear of being called a sock. Prodego talk 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion by Newyorkbrad

After Ideogram and I slightly modified the wording of FoF 4 from "behavior" to "misbehavior" as the finding should reflect, we were reverted by Newyorkbrad with the edit summary, "revert: non-arbitrators may not edit the proposed decision page (you may comment on the talk page or the workshop)." While this is true in most cases, I believe that there is an exception to this case, as stated explicitly on WP:AC/C that non-arbitrators and non-clerks are allowed to edit this page if said edits fall under "except for minor edits like typos and such" clause. I wish for clarification and reinstatement of the reverted edits. —210physicq (c) 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this comment when it was added or I would have responded earlier. My concern was that this change, although obviously not critical to the outcome of the decision, could arguably be considered substantive. If you still think the change should be made, an arbitrator may notice this thread, or you can leave a talkpage note for the arbitrator who drafted the decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
An arbitrator has now made the change, which of course is fine. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My proposed remedies

I sent this to Fred:

Fred - I've been reading the Inshanee RFAr Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop, and once again I am stunned by the disparity in how the lapses of WP CIVIL, NPA, and (disruption) of the participants in that RFAr, and my case are being considered.

There is just no way that my conduct (especially in dealing with confirmed sock puppets) deserves a one year block.

My proposed remedies are :

1) (preferred)

a) Banned from Free Republic article (and DU if you so choose) (tied to article probation)
b) 30 day ban from all political articles ( I have been working more on Mexico and music articles, so I could still edit these and add valuable premium content to Wiki - see Chacala)
c) No site ban
d) 1 year civility parole

2) second choice

a) Banned from Free Republic article (and DU if you so choose) (tied to article probation)
b) 30 day ban from all political articles
c) 10 day (up to a max of 30 day) site ban
d) Indefinite civility parole

I urge you to consider these realistic (in proportion to my conduct) remedies - withdraw your overly harsh one year ban - or to propose one of them as an alternative to the overly punative one year ban.

I also ask that even if you don't agree with my proposed remedies that you add them for others to vote and comment on. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAAFA blocked for ten days.

Just FYI, FAAFA has been blocked (including his talk page) for ten days. But from his departing comment, it appears that he has no intention of returning. --BenBurch 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very few people actually leave Wikipedia, most of them just assume different personas. A formal ban would eliminate the presumption of the subject's privacy if such an identity is discovered by regular or covert means, as editing from said account would constitute ban evasion, even if said account is older than the FAAFA account, as bans apply to people, not accounts. —freak(talk) 20:14, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Were I banned I'd just stay away. Maybe I'm a fool... --BenBurch 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that is because you have no reason to return. People who are banned usually have some type of agenda they need to complete, whereas you do not. Prodego talk 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think people who end up banned have put their own agenda's ahead of the projects. There are plenty of people who have agenda's that don't get banned because their personal agenda complements the project agenda. BenBurch, as a poltiical activist certainly has an agenda, he just doesn't put it ahead of the projects agenda. FAAFA had a similiar agenda but he put his own interest and his agenda's interest ahead of the projects. The same is true for BryanFromPalatine. I think FAAFA lasted so long because there were a lot of editors and administrators that were sympathetic to his agenda and that meant a lot more tolerance for his behavior. This side of his behavior is nothing new it just becomes much more obvious when it is scrutinized in a process that highlights behavior. I don't think FAAFA has ever been less disruptive than Bryan. Certainly his last outburst was a lot less civil than the worst of Bryan's outburst even when Bryan was facing a community ban. The question people should be asking is why is Bryan permanently banned through the community while FAAFA took an ArbCom proceeding. Even his latest outburst didn't get him a community ban (though if he wasn't about to be banned for a year, maybe he would have). --Tbeatty 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent observations, which I endorse. Crockspot 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the hidden allegations of "liberal bias" on WP, if anything, he was seen by most as the man responding to Bryan/Dean's Threat and general churlishness. It was thought by quite a few folks (including myself, that if we got rid of the main disrupter (Bryan/Dean), FAAFA would return to being a decent editor. However, FAAFA showed that he didn't NEED to be goaded by Bryan/Dean to be disruptive (he did get away with it long enough, he probably thought he could somehow skate through it). That being said, there is no room on WP for political extremists (of either wing) who would put "winning an argument" with the other side over the mission of building an encyclopedia. (signing) SirFozzie 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Liberals think WP has a Conservative bias. Conservatives think WP has Liberal bias. Which probably means it has a dynamic tension that keeps it trembling between those two extremes. --BenBurch 00:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't create a strawman argument. I never claimed Wikipedia has a liberal bias, nor is it hidden. My only claim is that there are more editors that sympathize with FAAFA point of view than with BFP's. Considering that there are a lot of European editors and the fact that Jimbo acknowledges this as a systemic bias. That doesn't mean that this bias enters articles or that Wikipedia articles have a liberal bias. My observation is simply of a fact of the demographics. This is an important distinction. --Tbeatty 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Although I agree with tbeatty's estimate that editors who get banned often put a personal agenda ahead of the good of the project, I strongly object to the insinuation that administrators commonly put their own politics ahead of the good of the project. What actually is commonplace is that a blocked or banned editor responds with baseless accusations of personal bias and administrator misconduct. At various times and situations I have been called (forgive the sometimes coarse language here) an atheist, a fundamentalist Christian, a faggot, a homophobe, a communist, and a right wing nut - often by people who don't even bother to read my userpage and make the reasonable inference that she would probably be the correct pronoun for an editor whose username is borrowed from the first female officer of the Russian army. And no, I'm not Russian either. I don't speak Russian and as far as I know I don't have any Russian descent at all. I've never even visited the country. And yes, some editors have not only tried to demand all those assurances, they've even asked me to prove it. The only common theme to all these accusations was that these editors each had a different POV of their own and no scruple about pushing it, and they presumed anyone who intervened had concealed the opposite agenda. If that had been my operative mode I would never have gained the community's trust and become a sysop. I think I can say the same for the vast majority of administrators. DurovaCharge! 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

True, true. Prodego talk 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I never insinuated that admins put their own politics ahead of the good of the project. Or that any did so here. Quite the opposite, in fact and I took strong offense at your characterization. People don't become admins by doing that and I have yet to see one put their own politics ahead of the project. I made an observation about demographics and about how this particular case played out. There is no conscious agenda. But to deny systemic bias due to world view and the participant population is to deny a fundamental problem acknowledged by Jimbo that wikipedia is working to remove.
Consider if wikipedia was written exclusively by American editors. Take the top 100 American editors. None of them have an agenda to be American centric when they write. Do you think this scenario would hold up to scrutiny of being without systemic bias? Of course not. Being an American doesn't make your articles biased. Being an American makes you an American. This in itself hold a certain point-of-view. This is the whole concept of increasing diversity as an improvement strategy. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias before creating these strawman arguments that I accused anyone of acting improperly besides FAAFA. I only ask that people review the community actions within the larger scope of countering systemic bias. I only ask what was asked on the ANI page: How did FAAFA last so long? I understand the individual arguments that admins believed that FAAFA could become a productive editor. I ask why since this obviously didn't play out and I ask why the community as a whole was so tolerant of him for so long. This should never have made ArbCom. --Tbeatty 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably because I lifted my lengthy ban on his older account. I should have left it in place. My repayment for being overly fair was to have him attack me every chance he could, simply because I wouldn't agree with his POV pushing of conspiracy theories on the 9/11 articles.--MONGO 07:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll use a Russian example, since you volunteered that info. Since you are not Russsian, you have a world view that is not Russian. You become an arbiter of a dispute between a Russion and a person who has the same nationality as you. In the fairest and most impartial way you can, you decide to rule in favor of the person with your nationality. You believe the Russian is truly mistaken. Do you think that you could arguably assume a Russian world view to intercede in a dispute between two persons, one of your nationality and the other Russian? Do you think that your systemic bias was non-existent even though you shared a common heritage with the other party? Even if you ruled as fairly as you possible could as a human being, do you think you could ever be sure it was objectively fair? In the example, you did nothing wrong. You had no conflict of interest that you were aware of. You acted as fairly as you thought possible. You had no agenda. Now let's say that 100 non-russian arbiters of the same nationality as you, but completely independant of you are also involved in completely separate arbitration suits involving russians. Do you think the outcome data should be analyzed for systemic bias? There is no wrongdoing by any of the arbiters, but wouldn't you want to know if 75% of the cases went against Russians? there is no accusation against any individual. there is no wrongdoing being done. In fact, the arbiters could be going to great lengths to be neutral. It could be that only Russians have this skewed outcome and it's 50/50 everywhere else. --Tbeatty 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very careful about avoiding logical fallacies and if I do commit a fallacy I like to be first to withdraw it and make amends. These are the exact words I disputed: I think FAAFA lasted so long because there were a lot of editors and administrators that were sympathetic to his agenda and that meant a lot more tolerance for his behavior. That statement provided no mention or suggestion of systemic bias and I responded to the words that were actually on the screen. If the author intended some other purpose and failed to express it, I have not committed a straw man fallacy. That only means the author chose his or her words poorly.
To respond to the hypothetical dispute between a Russian and an American editor, Tbeatty's scenario makes no distinction between content responses and administrative decisions. If I respond to an article WP:RFC about a content dispute, my approach is to measure the situation to the best of my ability, request citations to reliable sources, and disclose any factors that might color my opinion. Sysop tools are irrelevant there and my input carries no more weight than that of any other editor. If the responses in general appear to be demographically skewed toward an American systemic bias I would recommend the disputants solicit broader input through the appropriate WikiProjects or I might contact some of the site's prolific Russian editors and ask for their input. If the issue regards policy rather than content then systemic bias is irrelevant: I've stepped in to apply policy at every topic from professional wrestling in Australia to political figures of Cuba. I've even been asked to adjudicate a claim that an editor's username meant testicles in Hindi street slang. In those situations it really makes no difference at all whether I think a user's content edits are right or wrong. I'm not here to shape consensus reality; I'm here to apply policies and guidelines. If an editor deletes properly cited material then WP:VANDAL applies regardless of the topic or the editor's POV (I blocked someone for doing that today at Chile). If an editor inserts Blogspot links as references then WP:ATTRIBUTION applies. And if two editors dispute the reliability of a newspaper in a language I can't read then I'll solicit opinions from uninvolved editors who do know that country and language. Systemic bias is a red herring when it comes to administrative decisions. DurovaCharge! 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I expressed what I thought a broad swath of editors and administrators felt. How is that different than systemic bias? I believe, as Jimbo does, that there is a systemic bias and it's related to demographics of the people who edit Wikipedia. How is that an accusation that I accused people of wrongoding? And I would say your interpretation that Systemic bias is a red herring when it comes to administrative decisions is an obvious falsehood. Everyones interpretations are colored by the systemic biases they bring to the table. If you odn't think Thurgood Marshall and John Roberts brought different sytemic biases to their judicial renderings concerning interpreting the U.S. Constitution, I don't know what to say. Unless you have achieved Buddha enlightenment, viewpoints of such basic things as 'right' and 'wrong' are colored by our everyday experiences and systemic biases. In fact, in the examples you give above, you leave no room for gray areas in your interpretation. You leave no room for the possibility that you may be wrong. From the removal of which cited material to choosing who to ask for help on disputes involving other cultures, there is a gray area and systemic biases. You need to recognize this if you are going to use administrative actions in this way. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a need for Arbcom nor would there ever be a wheel war. People do the best they can given the experiences they have but everyone has biases. That's a condition of being human. Examining that bias and trying to correct it should be a discussion that is encouraged, not shouted down. --Tbeatty 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please argue Wikipedia philosophy on your own talk pages. This talk page pertains to the case at hand, not differing schools of thought regarding systemic bias. —210physicq (c) 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look. The cat came back. Jinxmchue 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Process question.

Now that there are a majority of votes for most items, does the proceeding close or do we wait for the other non-recused arbiters to weigh in? --BenBurch 19:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting normally continues until all proposals have received attention from a majority of arbitrators. When an arbitrator believes the decision is ready to be finalized, he or she makes a "motion to close" in the very bottom section. When that motion is enacted, the case is formally closed, the clerk gives notice, and the remedies take effect. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for more details. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite helpful. Thanks! --BenBurch 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Wikipedia:Attribution

Note to the arbitrators, you may wish to modify or augment the citation of Wikipedia:Attribution in the proposed decision by additionally or instead citing to the predecessor policies (which also were the ones in effect at the time of the underlying dispute). See generally Wikipedia talk:Attribution#This merger is a really bad idea (comment by Jimbo Wales. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A statement to Arbcom

Hello Arbitrators,

First, and most importantly, I would like to sincerely apologize for my numerous incidents of incivility and personal attacks which were disruptive to Wikipedia.

Secondly I would like to explain the reasons I have I acted in such a manner.

Before finding Wikipedia, I had spent a significant amount of my previous 10+ years on the internets participating in debate on free-wielding political discussion forums where incivility, personal attacks and insults were acceptable, and even normal behavior. It was also normal to mercilessly attack anyone who was proven to have deliberately lied in one of their arguments - and often such a person would often be strongly excoriated by their political 'allies' as well, not just their political 'opponents'.

Honesty is of great importance to me in my own life, and I judge and value others based on - to a large degree - their honesty.

Unfortunately I brought my history of attacking dishonest contributors - which is not compatible with Wikipedia - to Wikipedia as well. 10+ year patterns are hard to break.

90% of my attacks and incivility have been in response to dishonest actions (such as proven sockpuppetry) or dishonest claims by other editors - or in response to provoking actions from other editors.

I am disappointed and disheartened that WP tolerates civil dishonesty but not the incivil pursuit of The Truth, or the spirited criticism of dishonest editors, but I can't change that.

About my most recent block...

On 3/13 I posted alternate remedies in keeping with what other incivil but valuable editors have received and feel I stood a good chance of getting my 1 year block reduced to something more appropriate. Unfortunately on 3/14 and 3/15 a series of events occurred that resulted in me 'losing it' and becoming extremely incivil, unarguably disruptive and lashing out. I regret these actions - would like to publicly apologize for them - but also explain the genesis of them - and how once again - I feel that I was treated differently than other editors.

This RFAr was well underway when user CWC dishonestly claimed in the workshop that Admin Guy had called Dean Hinnen a "Neo-Nazi" diff1. As I had been following the RFAr closely, I knew this to be untrue. I civilly asked him to document his smear against Guy's character. diff2 He deleted my requests as 'trolling' - twice. As I'm a stickler for The Truth, and felt a certain kinship with Guy at the time as he has been accused - like me - of having a bit of a temper, and a wry sense of humor, I pursued this matter with vigor over the next couple days, eventually extracting a retraction and apology for this false accusation. (After CWC first claiming that the term that Guy did use - "far-right" was the same as "Neo-Nazi ") I also made the mistake of emailing Guy privately and criticizing him for not 'standing up for himself' in the face of such baseless defamations. As I am rather blunt and direct, I think I told him to 'grow some balls'. I don't think he appreciated my bluntness nor criticism.

A couple days later I did what many editors occasionally do. I decided to check out the recent edits of CWC. As I had caught him acting in an untruthful and malicious manner in his smearing of Guy, I felt I had every right to do so. I made a couple entirely proper NPOV edits to 2 articles where I was familiar with the subjects. CWC complained that I was Wikistalking him to Guy, diff4 who blocked me for 24 hours explaining that I should not have checked the edits of an 'editor in good standing'. Why he considered an editor who had just lied about him an 'editor in good standing' is a mystery to me.

Fast forward to March 13.

User Tbeatty, who has pursued, baited and provoked me for months - vandalizing my user page 3 times (once even creating a SPA to do so) and who currently has dedicated a portion of his user page to taunting and provoking me diff5 Wikistalked me to 2 different articles and admitted as such "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff He would later dishonesty accuse me of Wikistalking him to one of the articles (!) claiming "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff

When I notified Guy of Tbeatty's Wikistalking and dishonesty and suggested Administrative action my concerns were treated entirely differently than CWC's claims which resulted in me being blocked for 24 hours. When I pressed him for Administrative action I was rebuffed, insulted and my complaint was posted to ANi with my name as the 'offender' ! diff

I realize that the contentious and quarrelsome aspects of my interactions here have affected how I am perceived and treated by other editors and Admins too - but justice should be blind - and when I proved both dishonesty and Wikistalking from two different editors - but I am the one penalized for aggressively and incivilly confronting those actions - something is wrong.

When this happened on 3/15, I completely 'lost it' and am sorry for the despicable display of discourtesy that resulted in my 10 day ban.

Tomorrow, I will document how this unfortunate aspect of my behavior has resulted in this whole RFAr being less fair, accurate, and just that it could have, and should have been, and again propose alternate remedies that would allow me to continue to contribute valued content (see Chacala) in a civil manner after some penance. FaAfA yap 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering this has been an on-going problem with you ever since you started editing on Wiki, perhaps you need to take a voluntary vacation instead of offering up more explanations and excuses for the arbs and mods to once again forgive you. Jinxmchue 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not buying the excuse about ten years of uncivil political discourse on blogs. I have been ranting, raving, mocking, and ridiculing liberals on blogs for ten years as well. When I first came to WP, I also had difficulty adjusting initially, but it only took a week or so for me to figure out that my previously acceptable behavior was not acceptable on WP. I modified my behavior. I have attempted to help FAAFA to realize the difference between WP and blogs since the day he arrived, and have gotten nothing in return except ridicule, mockery, and personal attacks. Even in the middle of his ARBCOM, in which his fate hung in the balance, he did not improve. In fact, he got worse. It's a little bit late to come with hat in hand now. I have seen no indication that he is even capable of modifying his behavior. I have seen the disdain he holds for WP policies and editors in his off-wiki posts. I have seen indications that his private communications with other editors who he percieves as his political allies are quite different than his publicly readable claims of fairness, accuracy, and truth. The decisions here have more or less been made, it's just a matter of closing process now. I see no good reason to disrupt the process and turn it back a few cranks now. - Crockspot 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at your user page and talk page, I think you're.. um.. "Not Ready to Play Nice", FaAfA. SirFozzie 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. Why are you pointing out my user page? Are you an anti-Mason? - FaAfA yap 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I noticed you had been unblocked, and went to check your user page and talk page just to see if you had improved your behaviour and got those two images. I didn't even know they were "Mason" imagery.
At this point, I don't think it really matters much anyway, there are calls to close the case. And at this point, there's not much that can be done, because people who are putatively on the same side of the fence as you (Guy, Myself and even Ben) agree that your recent actions are way over the line. I do hope you come back after the ban and become a productive editor, however. SirFozzie 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that my recent actions were way over the line, and apologized sincerely for them. I was also treated unfairly because of my abrasiveness. There can be no denying that. Civility should not trump dishonesty. IMHO, a one year ban is overly punative and looking at my real history (which was ignored in the proposed decision) - a history that includes months of mostly civil good faith efforts on improving the Free Republic (and other) article(s), and even being the person actively sought mediation - and then continued to work in good faith during mediation until BFP created numerous sock puppet accounts - disproportionate. - FaAfA yap 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree a whole year is far too long. I do hope you'll come back afterwards, but the measure appears to have just passed. --BenBurch 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you come back after your ban and reflection period. I would also ask that you refactor this page and stop calling me dishonest. --Tbeatty 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have this 'thing' about honesty, TB. Feel free to prove your claim that I 'followed you' to the US Attorneys article, and I'll gladly retract what I wrote and apologize - and while you're at it, I'd love to see documentation for your claim that Jimbo admitted that Wikipedia has a EU-centric systematic bias because of the preponderance of EU editors and Admins. My research shows that a USA and USA+UK English-speaking, and 'First World' bias was what was actually alleged. Where did Jimbo make that claim about all the EU editors and their systematic bias, TB? Thanks. (sorry if you find my words and actions disconcerting TB, but it's just that I'm a stickler for The Truth) - FaAfA Aloha 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the Jimbo article. [1]. Here's where I added a NPOV tag. Here's your revert.
That article doesn't support your claim of "Considering that there are a lot of European editors and the fact that Jimbo acknowledges this as a systemic bias." Nor do your diffs support your claim that I 'came' to that article 'just to revert you'. I was active on that article before you were. - FaAfA Aloha 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does support what I said (which you misquoted, BTW). You are allowed to disagree but please stop calling me dishonest. --Tbeatty 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1)It does not support your claim. 2) I cut and pasted your text regarding 'systemic bias'. How could I misquote you? - FaAfA Aloha 06:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This 'your claim that Jimbo admitted that Wikipedia has a EU-centric systematic bias because of the preponderance of EU editors and Admins.' is not an accurate reflection of what I said. Not even close. Nor is it what Jimbo said. I agree with this statement by Jimbo and on the FAQ page and that is all I said: "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population." and from the FAQ "we had a systemic bias toward liberal issues. However, as Wikipedia has grown, and become more mainstream, the liberal contingent has declined as a proportion of Wikipedia in general." Your insistence that I am being dishonest is beyond the pale. --Tbeatty 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Considering that there are a lot of European editors and the fact that Jimbo acknowledges this as a systemic bias."Tbeatty 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC) - FINI! - FaAfA Aloha 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If God almighty can accept deathbed conversion, so can we. I have proposed one year probation. If he is unable to control himself, it will turn into a ban anyway. Fred Bauder 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

These are his edits before his last "deathbed conversion" prior to the quiet period of 10 days where he was blcoked. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. As the object of these attacks, I certainly think something more than probation is required. Does anyone think that Dean or Bryan did anything this bad? How much more of this am I required to tolerate as the object of these attacks? --Tbeatty 02:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Quit taunting diff, baiting diff 'Stalking' diff and harassing me diff - follow the intent of BLP, make sure you tell the truth, don't side with known sockpuppets who may agree with your politics - and we won't have any problems. By the way, I find it very disturbing that you requested unprotection for my user page (which you have edited without my permission multiple times). diff I had them re-protect it. - FaAfA Aloha 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read your diff. You will see that it wasn't your user page. And you will also see I was removing the request as it was already fulfilled automatically. --Tbeatty 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I'm wrong. My sincere apologies. Since you had edited my user page on 3/15 and discussed such actions on 3/24 diff I thought that's what you did. I didn't see the 't'. Sorry again. Would you like me to retract/redact my erroneous claim? I hope you don't find this insulting, but I find your focus (some would say obsession) on me to the point that you dedicated a significant portion of your user page to taunting me diff (and your many other actions focused on me) very disturbing. If I am allowed to stay I will ask for one of those sanctions that bars 2 editors from interacting. I think it best. - FaAfA Aloha 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't seek you out for conflict. In fact, I had 10 days of very productive edits. I would like to see that continue. You would never have even seen the unlock request unless you were searching for my edits. If you are that dedicated to your proposal, you should have simply executed it and you would never have been the wiser. I, however, have heard your apologies and proposals before and simply do not take them at face value. It is my belief that your rant 10 days ago is much more indicative of the edits to come rather than your proposal here. This is not between two editors. I am one of many that find dealing with your edits to be tedious and tiresome. Please look at the plethora of comments on the latest AN/I involving you (none are from me). You have tried to personify this dispute when it is really a simple referendum on your behavior. Even now, while apologizing for your behavior, you do not take full responsibility for it and try to shift blame to others. In your edits in the last month, you blamed DeanHinnen, BryanFromPalatine, me, JzG, MONGO, Fred, the Admins, ArbCom, Stalin, Baphomet and now Brutus for the problems created by your own edits. I find it somewhat troubling that while on a version of parole during arbcom you went on an editing killing spree and the latest punishment proposal is less than the original. If you were not already part of an Arbcom dispute with a majority asking for a year long ban, I would have suggested community ban for your latest outburst. --Tbeatty 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
During the 10 days you speak of, a significant number of your edits were about me, focusing on me, posting taunting pictures and messages (then even updating the messages!) on your user page directed at me, campaiging against me, even going so far as editing my userpage. One of your 'allies' even congratulated you on 'making my head explode'. diff At least you didn't create a SPA sockpuppet account mocking my username to harass me and vandalize my user page like you did in the past! diff Please - for God's sake - can't you just leave me alone ? - FaAfA Aloha 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fred ! This is what I proposed. Comments welcomed:
A) The one year site ban to be considered a 'suspended sentence'
B) 10 day site ban
C) 30 (actually a 40) day ban from editing anything except for geographical articles such as Chacala (gives me a chance to perform 'community service' which helps improve Wiki, and helps prove my 'worth' to the community)
D) Indefinite civility parole with blocks from 24 hrs to 1 week, and a stipulation that any three arbitrators who agree that I have returned to a pattern of repeated incivility can enforce the one year site ban.
E) Indefinite ban from the FR and DU articles is OK too. (If articles are put on probation - BFP is STILL editing FR using socks) - FaAfA Aloha 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Part C is a highly unusual ban proposal, I must say. Prodego talk 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought 'outside the box'. At first I was going to suggest a 30 day ban, but then thought why not devise a plan where I could ONLY participate in a manner which keeps me away from contentious subjects, lets me contribute in way that actually helps BUILD the encyclopedia, and adds good content ? It's like 'community service' ! What's better for society? To jail a non violent offender - or have him or her sweep the streets or perform another task that helps the community? Like Naomi Cambell! (but I never threw a phone at my non existant housekeeper !) I hope that Arbcom will consider my proposal. The Mexico articles need a lot of work, and I've travelled Mexico extensively, and know it well. _ FaAfA Aloha 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA is here for one purpose only...POV pushing. One year probation is ridiculous...he deserves no less than a one year ban. Tbeatty's diffs above are further proof that FAAFA is incapable of working in a collaborative environment as this one.--MONGO 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MONGO - I see you deleted my civil post rather than document your fanciful claims regarding me and 9/11 conspiracy theory 'POV pushing'. diff Edit summary = "Get lost". Disappointing. Not entirely civil either. Pehaps YOU will provide some diffs? When was the last time I edited ANY 9/11 related article MONGO? (edit / that would be Feb 17! diff- FaAfA Aloha 06:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Again highlighting how you have decided to take the road of conflict rather than civility. MONGO hasn't made a single comment about you in at least 10 days, yet one of your first actions on returning was to troll his talk page. This is what we all have to look forward to if you retain your editing privileges. --Tbeatty 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out TB, I have an 'obsession' with The Truth, and until I was unblocked, I didn't have the opportunity to address MONGO's false claim. That's trolling? - FaAfA Aloha 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If your true interest was to help us write an encyclopedia, once the ten day block expired, you would have proceeded to write. Instead, you resume right where you left off. I was wrong to lift the one month block I had placed on your previous username. I should have sought a community ban then...the evidence has only stacked up deeper since, so a one year probation will do nothing beneficial for Wikipedia.--MONGO 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's your block log that MONGO was referrring to: [11] You can see he reduced your blcok from 30 days to 48 hours. The day before you were blocked by [User:Luna Santin][12] for pushing your POV that [User:GabrielF/911TMCruft] was a project page and being generally disruptive (remember your Byron Insert crap?). The 911TM page was about removing 9/11 conspiracy cruft and your disruption of it is a reasonable interpretation of POV pushing and is a 9/11 conspiracy related page. In any case, MONGO's perception is not dishonest and his reduction of your block should have garnered an apology and a thank you, but instead you left this. --Tbeatty 07:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Right - AFD's like Lauri Klaustis, The Power of Israel in the USA, Post Election Selection Trauma, Andy Stephenson, The Frankin Coverup, The Bohemian Grove, The Cancer Conspiracy, (JFK) Assassination Science, Worldwide Perception of Osama Bin Laden etc, etc, etc, were 9/11 related. link Uh huh. - FaAfA Aloha 07:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not 9/11 related perhaps, but cruft, nevertheless.--MONGO 08:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MONGO - your defamation of me as a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory POV Pusher was a documentably false baseless smear. Want me to find the diff where I explain at length that I don't believe in any of them? I am deeply offended. - FaAfA Aloha 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is something left to be said that an editor sincerely believes would be helpful to the arbitrators, it probably isn't useful for this discussion to continue here. Newyorkbrad 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you have an inside track with the arbcom, ask them to get this case over and done with. I'm sick and tired of FAAFA's antics, so too is the rest of those that have presented obvious diffs demonstrating his POV pushing, harassment and incivility.--MONGO 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My antics, POV pushing, harassment and incivility ? link Pot to kettle. FaAfA Aloha 09:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, arbcom did not endorse those points, now did they.[13].--MONGO 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you MONGO for exposing one of FAAFA's techniques for attacking other editors, namely dragging out some irrelevant bit of information that, in this case, was ultimately rejected by the ARBCOM. I know that Fred has good intentions in dragging this out a little longer, but really, this needs to stop ASAP. - Crockspot 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MONGO -No they didn't MONGO, and that's why I invoke your name frequently, and the 'free pass' you've been given. (for your hard work, which I acknowledge) Your own incivility, personal attacks and 'POV pushing' in regards to anything that vaguely resembles criticism of the USA or the bush administration, or the bush admistration's take on the events of 9/11 continue unabated. Yesterday your edit summary to me was "get lost" and on 3/15 you wrote of TravB a now-retired longtime editor who was valued and well-liked by the community with the exception of those opposed to his politics. "Zero intelligence and one of the most bored morons I have ever encountered." Edit summary = "idiot". diff Wiki Justice, unfortunately, is far from blind. I've admitted to my incivility and inappropriate attacks - suggested remedies that would prevent them in the future - and apologized for my contentious and argumentative actions and nature. Have you ? - FaAfA Aloha 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your observations are ludicrus. TravB was blocked multiple times for incivilities and other offenses. I don't defend the Bush administration and comments such as the one you have made here only demonstrate your continued lack of good faith to anyone opposed to you. Yes, Cplot, the harassing troll was a bored moron, which, had you bothered to read the thread, is the editor I was referring to. Yes, you return from a block and post on my taklkpage in a threatening manner, so my response to that, harassment by a person that should have been banned long ago, is indeed to, get lost. I think that is in your immediate future anyway.--MONGO 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
'Threatening manner' ? diff After the baseless smear you posted about me - alleging I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who tried to push 9/11 CT's - naturally while I was blocked so I couldn't answer your fallacious defamation? That mendacious untrue 'observation' you concocted is what's ludicrous. And dishonest. If I picked the wrong person you were attacking in y'all's little insult-fest diff I do apologize. I didn't mean to be intentionally inaccurate.- FaAfA Aloha 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please consider accepting his apology (and making one of your own) Fred Bauder 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time doing exactly that per his response to me here. —210physicq (c) 04:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for any comments he found offensive and I try to remove comments that offends him as I did the picture on my user page. I accept his apology. That doesn't mean that he should be editing Wikipedia. He is simply not suited for it. This is not the first time these issues have been raised. --Tbeatty 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Physicq - I'm deeply sorry for attacking the integrity of you and others that day, and hope you'll accept my apology. My post above (Statement to Arbcom) explains how and why that unforunate outburst occured (I feel that because of my abrasivess I was denied equal justice), but does not excuse my deplorable actions. Again - my apologies. I have many faults - but to blow my own horn a little - I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong - and no problem apologizing for my bone-headeness, short temper and contentious nature. - FaAfA Aloha 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty - In regards to your opinion that I'm not suited to be editing Wikipedia - only one of us was personally accused of 'lying' by Jimbo Wales (later refactored to something less harsh) and told that they "have no business editing wikipedia at all" because of their disregard for BLP during their relentless POV campaign to impugne 9/11 'truther' Steven E. Jones - and it wasn't me! I'd say Jimbo's opinion carries a bit more weight than yours, but that's just me! diff "frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing wikipedia at all.The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable that if you don't understand it, I don't know what else to say about it."--Jimbo Wales 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) - FaAfA Aloha 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to review it. Jimbo has the power to block me or ban me at any time. I made a comment on a users talk page about using Steven E. Jones as a reliable source considering his suspension regarding his claims of having his paper peer reviewed. [14]. It was refactored. [15]. The refactorer left this warning by an editor I did not know was an admin, nor was it a standard warning nor did he warn me of a block. I reworded my comment and sourced it [16]. I was blocked for 24 hours and Jimbo upheld the block as an axample of how aggressive he wanted to be with BLP. I would hope the arbcom would hold you to only one-tenth of that standard. --Tbeatty 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've watched this whole mess mostly from afar, but I have weighed in a few times to post evidence, and to comment on appropriate remediations for all three (or four depending on how you count them) participants. One of my comments was that a one year block was to long for FAAFA. Since seeing FAAFA's complete lack of ability to control himself most recently, resulting in the hurling of insults, profanity and personal attacks I've since changed my mind and I think that is exactly what needs to be done. Frankly, I'm not opposed to the idea of probation as a general idea....Except in this case I do not believe that it would serve its intended purpose. Its ashame really as I do think FAAFA can and does participate in a positive manner *some* of the time. For the most part however FAAFA exhibits a pattern that he has repeated on many occassions. 1) Be Offensive, 2) Offensive, , 3) Get called on the 'carpet' for the offenses, 4) Apologize profusely and offer weak excuses for offenses, while simultaneously putting the blame on someone else for said offenses, 5) Promise not to repeat behavior, 6) Resume being Offensive again. Indeed he repeated this pattern multiple times *DURING* this RAF...as well during his RFC and many times during the life of this username and his prior username.
Perhaps his apologies are sincere, perhaps ALL of them have been. Googling "FAAFA", "Apologize", yields 198 Google hits. Sincere are not, I do not believe that he has the ability to control himself to the degree necessary to continue to be a positive participant.Dman727 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In light of new proposal

I want to make sure this isn't missed as being buried in the previous section. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. There are more but I think this illustrates the point. They aren't among the incivilities currently listed on the proposal page. I am not sure why the punishment should be less when the incivility has gotten worse. --Tbeatty 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I question FAAFA's judgement in some of the edits he made yesterday related to FreeRepublic and Zombietime. It doesn't seem like he is trying to avoid conflict. - Crockspot 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more [26][27][28][29][30][31]. --Tbeatty 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In case this got overlooked too

Tbeatty taunting diff, baiting, diff stalking diff, and harassing me. diff Admitting he 'Wikistalked' me "I check up on your edits." diff then dishonestly accusing me of Wikistalking him."The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff - FaAfA Aloha 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Help me out here. How is him correcting spelling taunting you? Jinxmchue 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why .... Look who's here ! Jinx. Another of my provokers. diff Sorry, but you need to ask Tbeatty to explain the message that pic conveys and the "7 - 0" if you really don't 'get it', which I doubt is the case. He deleted it as soon as I brought it to Admin attention. That should buy you a clue. - FaAfA Aloha 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm proably not as smart as I could be, but I didnt associate the train to being a metaphor for FAAFA until it was brought up on this page. It proably is taunting but its a pretty mild form. Nonetheless, I offer FAAFA a piece of advice that I tell my kids and I have to tell myself occasionally..."You cant control other people...you only control how YOU react to them". I mean that with sincerity as I think it applies to most of what this case is about. Dman727 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Great advice. That should be one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. - Crockspot 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why, look at that. The pot calls the kettle black. Jinxmchue 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA's responses at this section say it all: a consistently heated tone that personalizes disputes is incompatible with encyclopedic collaboration. I have advised FAAFA to conduct discussions in a calmer manner, which has often distracted serious attention from the factual merits of this editor's presentations. An editor who cannot follow that advice now while the Committee's attention is focused is unlikely to follow it at any time in the near future. FAAFA could appeal the ban after several months or wait it out and return to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
He'll sockpuppet first. Jinxmchue 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Free_Republic_Proposed_decision_4f72.html"