Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please join discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Take a deep breath, and let's continue the discussion based on editing text.--Cberlet 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Three observations

  1. The allegation made by Cberlet and Will Beback, that Marvin Diode is a "pro-LaRouche editor," is to my knowledge unfounded. MD is a stickler for policy, and Cberlet appears to be making no attempt to defend his record in that regard.
  2. I did in fact agree to Cberlet's proposed mediation. However, I suspect that there was no way it could have gotten off the ground with the very large number of people he named as parties (all of which must agree for the mediation to proceed.)
  3. Will Beback is not a neutral observer; he has consistently taken Cberlet's side in all disputes. --MaplePorter 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I did not call Marvin Diode a "pro-LaRouche editor". I did say that his editing history speaks for itself.
3. I have not taken Cberlet's side in all disputes, or else I would not be quoted as someone who contacted him regarding his behavior. I'd prefer we not have "sides" in this matter, as we are all Wikipedia editors and we should all share the same goals. Bringing this RfC, with false claims of editing against consensus, does not seem like a good way of improving the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The claim that you contacted him off-Wiki about his behavior does not in any way contradict the fact that you have taken his side in all disputes. Would you be willing to disclose your off-Wiki communications with Cberlet? --MaplePorter 06:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of disputes on LaRouche pages that I have avoided entirely, so it's obvious that I haven't sided with anyone in every dispute. 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it differently, then. You have never opposed Cberlet in any dispute. Would you be willing to disclose your off-Wiki communications with Cberlet? --MaplePorter 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, let's not turn this into a McCarthyite witch hunt. Will Beback and another admin sent me messages suggesting that I cool down and change my editing tone. Beyond that confirmation, I consider private correspondence to be private. Let's stick to the issues. This is not an RFC for conduct by Will Beback.--Cberlet 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Will Beback's outside view

In response to Will Beback's outside view, I don't believe it is possible to have a one-person edit war, but I do believe that it is possible for one person to start one, and in this case I see a pattern.

The COI policy clearly allows experts to edit articles in their field of specialty, but not to the point of self-promotion, or giving undue weight to their own opinions. I didn't call Cberlet a "single-person account" -- I quoted someone working at the COI noteboard, who did.

Finally, I consider the accusation that this RFC is "not made with clean hands" to be a personal attack. Please address at least a few of your comments to the extensively documented policy violations of Cberlet.

One other point -- apparently Cberlet's mediation request was both filed and closed while I was on vacation. I came back to find a notice on my talk page with a link to a deleted page. I was around, however, for Cberlet's request for arbitration which preceded it. --Marvin Diode 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't consider starting an edit war to be substantially worse than continuing the revert battle. Also, regarding the expression "not made with clean hands" - I would suggest this was essentially reiterating that neither side was blameless. Addhoc 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How does one start an edit war? By making an edit? Could MD please clarify what it was, specifically, that Cberlet did to single-shadedly start the war? Regarding the SPA accusation, does MD agree with the quote or not? If not, why add it here? Further, what policies has Cberlet violated? The BLP issue is not a clear violation, and Cberlet has been no more uncivil than the certifiers of this RfC (see below). Are the certifiers of this RfC asserting that Cberlet (and Dking) are the only ones who have made edits that might be termed "soapboxing"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I never saw any editors add long, off-topic essays to talk pages extolling the virtues of LaRouche. However, both Dking and Cberlet added long, off-topic essays denouncing him. I consider this "soap-boxing." --Marvin Diode 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if there was evidence that Cberlet or Dking have written "long, off-topic essays" denouncing LaRouche then that should have provided. The links that were provided only went to short paragraphs that appear to have been relevant to the ongoing discussions. And yes, I have seen other editors engaging in similar behavior, albeit with a different focus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but it's a bit difficult to discuss it now that one of Cberlet's pals has deleted the project page. --MaplePorter 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, is this a personal attack or a conspiracy theory of persecution by unseen forces? I need to know in order to frame an appropriate courteous response.--Cberlet 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure by Addhoc

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

[edit] WP:CIVIL

The RfC lists six diffs purporting to show violations of WP:CIVIL. However only two of them appear to refer to Wikipedia users (the rest referring to the LaRouche movement in general), and one of those involved an unrelated article and users who haven't brought this RfC.[1]. So that leaves only one that's applicble to this RfC:

  • The lead needs to be rewritten to be less of an apologia of LaRouche, no matter how relentlessly his supporters on Wikipedia try to whitewash reality [2]

So he accused unnamed LaRouche "supporters on Wikipedia" of trying to "whitewash reality". Considering the comments that have been made about Cberlet by several editors including many who have been banned, is this really a notable breach of WP:CIVIL? Let's compare it to remarks made by the certifers of this RfC about various editors:

  • However, the "swindle" quote from his wife appears to be out of context, as many of King's quotes from LaRouche typically are. [3]
  • Also, LaRouche has often used the phrase "100 times worse than Hitler" to describe the policies of the IMF toward the 3rd World, but never to describe the Israelis -- is your memory bad, or are you misleading us? [4]
  • These are two editors who in real life are known for their obsessive hatred of LaRouche, and I don't think I am exaggerating at all. I can't image why anyone would think that either of them are capable of editing this article from a Neutral Point of View. Their edits appear to me to be highly disruptive and they ought to recuse themselves from this and related articles. [5]
  • This is a personal attack on Don't lose that number. First Will Beback insinuates that the summaries of the briefs are inaccurate, and wants quotes. Then he insinuates that the quotes may be improperly transcribed, and wants scans. This is either a violation of WP:NPA, or WP:POINT, or both.[6]
  • It's not a "discussion post." It's a bunch of histrionics that do not make your arguments one iota more convincing...The facts contradict this claim, and no amount of long-winded soap-boxing will change that. The soap-boxing is inappropriate and should stop [7]
  • I know that some editors are extremely eager to include any negative gossip about LaRouche that they can, but I would suggest that they chill on this one.[8]
  • Cberlet's soapboxing on the talk page is another violation, in addition to being needlessly provocative and juvenile....Cberlet appears to be pursuing a policy of trying to turn any article that mentions LaRouche into an essay for his POV.[9]
  • I would like to point out that the lack of civility and constant soapboxing from Dking and Cberlet does not contribute to conflict resolution on these articles. We get it, you don't like LaRouche. Now, can we get on with the editing?[10]
  • I was merely providing an answer to Will's earlier question. No need for an additional rant. [11]
  • You might add a source request to that article. However, Dking, your contributions to this discussion, and your edit summaries, are so truculent as to make me wonder whether you are participating in a serious manner.[12]

On account of the above citations, the assertion that Cberlet has been less civil than the certifiers of this RfC appears incorrect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the RfC certifiers can find comments by Cberlet that are significantly more uncivil than their own comments they should withdraw the civility complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even-handedness

Will seems to be saying that there is a lack of even-handedness in this filing. This is a topic that I am happy to address, and in fact, over the past months, I have left a series of messages on this topic at Will Beback's talk page.[13][14]

First of all, I often visit pages that are listed on the article RFC board, and I have seen a lot of disputes, although I think the ones at the LaRouche articles are the worst. I think that the pro-LaRouche editors have had their share of lapses of civility, and I might have also launched a RFC on User:NathanDW, were it not for the fact that he was recently banned by SlimVirgin. I think that an RFC would have been a far more appropriate response than a sudden banning. The same goes for User:Don't lose that number. However, since those two users are banned, it makes little sense to discuss their conduct in an RFC about somebody else -- it appears to be a diversion from the topic at hand.

Looking at the histories of the LaRouche articles and the LaRouche 2 arbcom case, it looks to me like Will Beback and SlimVirgin act as "enablers" for Cberlet and Dking, apologizing for their behavior, changing the subject to the behavior of their factional opponents, and also banning their factional opponents. I notice that at Lyndon LaRouche, both Cberlet and Dking asked, on the talk page and in an edit summary, that NathanDW be banned, apparently with the expectation that their wishes would be granted. Note that at WP:CIVIL, "calling for blocks or bans" is considered one of the more serious violations of civility.

So, I have filed this RFC so that Cberlet's conduct may be addressed. He will have the full opportunity to respond, which is certainly more than NathanDW and "Dont lose that number" got. --Marvin Diode 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted the list above to say that there appears to be hypocrisy, or a double standard, in this complaint. The remarks posted above weren't made by NathanDW or Don't lose that number, they were made by Marvin Diode and MaplePorter, the certifiers of this RfC. So if discussing NathDW and DLTN is a distraction, then why are you mentioning them? You mention "even-handedness" - can you point to any occasion in which you commented on the "lapses of civility" by the "pro-LaRouche editors"? Who are these "pro-LaRouche editors" that are referred to? I can't recall any editor self-identifying as such, and many accounts that edit LaRouche articles have made elaborate explanations of their disinterest. If NathanDW and DLTN are considered "pro-LaRouche", then why wouldn't we also consider the certifiers of this RfC to be "pro-LaRouche" as well? Lastly, how many times, including this RfC, have Cberlet and Dking been told to stop editing? I'm not going to count them up, but it appears to be a common occurence, at least by a small number of accounts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made comments on "lapses of civility" that were directed at all the editors, not one particular side of the disputes. Here is one such example. The bone that I attempted to pick with you in the past is that you were leaving warnings on the talk pages of NathanDW and others, but not Cberlet's talk page. As far as "pro-LaRouche editors" are concerned, no one that I can recall has identified himself as a "pro-LaRouche editor," but I can't think of one editor who disagreed with Cberlet on these articles who has not been labeled by Cberlet as a "pro-LaRouche editor." In his response to this RFC, Cberlet charges that I edit Wikipedia primarily to defend LaRouche. This appears to be some sort of tactic. --Marvin Diode 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I've made also made general calls for civility too so there's no cause for complaint about my lack of even-handedness. Who were you referring to when you said that "pro-LaRouche editors have had their share of lapses of civility"? This RfC charges that Cberlet edits Wikipedia mostly to attack LaRouche. Why isn't reasonable for Cberlet to make a similar claim about the certifiers of this RfC? If it's poor form to call some editors "pro-LaRouche" then why isn't poor form to say that some editors have an "axe to grind", or say they have an "obessive hatred of LaRouche"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
When I refer to "King," I speak of Dennis King, the public person. When I want to refer to the Wikipedia editor, I'll use his user name, Dking. It isn't that hard to keep these things straight. If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether Dennis King has an "obsessive hatred of LaRouche," I invite you to have a look at his web site. --MaplePorter 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's appropriate to differentiate those two identities. However remember that WP:BLP applies when referring to "Dennis King", so making unsourced defamatory remarks is inappropriate. Back tto the question at hand - you certified this RfC with a complaint about Cberlet's incivility. I've listed above instances where you've been equally, if not more, uncivil than Cberlet. You complain that he pushes a POV, yet your own edits appear very one-sided. Is it right to complain about an editor for behavior so similar to one's own? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop trying to change the subject

This is an RFC about Cberlet. I believe that he has a serious behavior problem and that it should be discussed.

If it is your view, Will, that he has no behavior problem, state your case.

If it is your view that he has a behavior problem, but that he has some special status here that makes him exempt from scrutiny, please explain your reasoning (but this had better be good.)

If you think that I have violated WP:CIVIL or any other Wikipedia policy, by all means start up a RFC on me and we'll discuss it there. I welcome it. At least I'll get my day in court, which is a damn sight better than what NathanDW and DLTN got.

But please, enough with the diversionary smokescreen. --MaplePorter 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that any editor on Wikipedia is perfect. The problem here is that it's hypocritical to blaim Cbelet for behavior that you also engage in. There's no clear evidence of Cberlet breaking any polices. There are two main charges: BLP regarding Kronberg and civility. The certifiers of this RfC have been more uncivil than Cberlet has so it's ridiculous for them to accuse him. As for the BLP issue, it hinges on the narrow matter of whether a newspaper with a circulation of 30,000 is a reliable source or not, and the broad matter of whether negative remarks about an eponymous movement come under BLP. The jury is still out and it's not a clear violation of BLP either way. This is a faulty RfC, brought and certified by editors with unclean hands. At least one of those editors, MaplePorter, is highly knowledgeable about the history and inner workings of the LaRouche movement, and so may be presumed to have both a POV and a COI regarding LaRouche and Chip Berlet. It is impossible to grant credence to a complaint from a sympathizer to the LaRouche movement regarding either Chip Berlet or Cberlet due to their well-known views about him. The aim of this RfC may be guessed by reference to its authors' editing histories. Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Coming here to attack Chip Berlet or ennoble Lyndon LaRouche (or vice versa) is inappropriate. Rather than complaining about other users please set an example for the type of POV-free, non-tendentious editing you'd like to see at Wikipedia. That would be more productive than this RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

[edit] Inequal view

I would like to point out a possible error in your opinion. By your reasoning on records, Chip is more important than Marvin. Do we really want to promote that inequal view? Dagomar 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim was that Cberlet (and Dking) are "COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest." The two certifiers of this RfC have edit histories which indicate that they appear to have one primary purpose on Wikipedia. My point is that they are blaming Cberlet for behavior that they engage in as much or more as Cberlet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, i was half asleep when i got online last night. Where is the mediation, just out of curiosity? Dagomar 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the mediation was rejected, the page was deleted by the mediation committee. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to outside View by Dagomar

I see your point, although I don't think it is simply a question of these writers agitating to have their views included in Wikipedia articles. It is also a question of them agitating to remove opposing views, so that their POV dominates the articles. --Marvin Diode 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is removing "opposing viewpoints" a behavior that is exclusive to Cberlet? Have the certifiers of this RfC never removed information from an article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute lacking

I'm not certain which individual added this page to the approved section, because the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute on the part of those certifying this RfC remains highly lacking, namely: limited to a warning template and on the part of one and a rather obscure 'you are violating almost all the rules in the book' comment from the other. I'll give these two users 24-48 hours to establish that more was done on their part to resolve the dispute prior to filing this RfC. If they fail to do so, it will be deleted and delisted. Thx. El_C 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that your examination of the evidence was superficial. You appear to have missed one of the basic messages in the first section. However, I have added more material. I also copied, from another section, Cberlet's responses to messages left on his talk page, which in each case was a deletion of the message, accompanied by an un-civil edit summary. This was not an encouraging response. Also, I would like to link to the proposed mediation, which as I noted earlier I agreed to join, but the mediation failed and has been deleted. Finally, in the event that you are still not satisfied, I think that your threat to delete this RFC after it has been properly certified is improper and partisan -- you have been reprimanded in the past for inappropriate use of administrative tools.[15]. --MaplePorter 12:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You have failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve the dispute on your part, and as such, it is likely that this RfC shall be deleted and delisted. El_C 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I double checked the new additions and fail to see how these efforts could, even remotely, be considered sufficient. As such, I have deleted and delisted this RfC. El_C 08:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's for the best. The claimed policy violations didn't hold up to scrutiny anyway. Perhaps you could review Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking as well. It's a duplicate of this RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get to the root?

Will, you have brought up an important point about clean hands. But can we now look at Cberlet's conduct, which was the point of this RfC? After it concludes an RfC on the initiators may be in order, but for now lets take the opportunity. Dagomar 06:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Mediation/Discussion

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

[edit] Notice of RfC (LaRouche, Et Al)

To All Interested Parties;

A RfC, has been initiated this day on all LaRouche articles. Dagomar 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC delisted

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


[edit] Please join discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Take a deep breath, and let's continue the discussion based on editing text.--Cberlet 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)