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

Active/inactive Arbitrators

Active

• Blnguyen
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Raul654
• SimonP

Away/inactive

• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality (Ben)
• Paul August
• UninvitedCompany

Name

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

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

Focus of dispute finding

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

Clarification on "THF banned from politically charged topics"

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

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

• I think the problem is the way a person goes about proposing it. For instance, his "documentary" ranking was entitled Sicko’s Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too, and he argued for its use across WP:MULTIPLE articles, such as WikiProject Film as well as on Talk:Sicko, [Jackass Number Two and The Dream is Alive. --David Shankbone 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You reference four talk page diffs, all which occurred before the RFC was closed by THF himself - I've still not seen a diff that occurred after the RFC, and I've still not seen any actual article diff. It is astounding to me that we continue to point to this as the prime example of THF's supposed wrongdoing, when in fact is it a textbook example of how to present your own material for inclusion. Unbelievable. ATren 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't just say, "Hey, I wrote this little article and would like to propose it to be included," but was actually arguing that we would violate NPOV policy by not including it. I think it's problematic to imply that "anything goes" on Talk pages where COI issues are concerned. That was the genesis of my COI guideline change proposal, but I belatedly realized it would limit participation too much. In THF's case, he kind of abused the guidelines with his arguments. Which brings me back to my original point that THF often abuses the spirit of guidelines and policies, if not the letter. But ATren, the problems with THF revolve around the totality of his edits and that he doesn't edit with NPOV, a fundamental policy, in mind. He pushed an agenda, something I can not be accused of doing. --David Shankbone 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are arguing that it is improper, indeed against policy, to make an argument on a talk page? Even if the editor in question never edits the article directly and abides by consensus when others don't agree? You aren't really suggesting that, are you David? ATren 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that THF went over the line of acceptability in his proposal on the Talk page. That is not the only thing I am arguing, but it is one. --David Shankbone 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be Socratic about this, but how could he have proposed it and not have gone over the line? You mention the MULTI problem, but that seems to be at least partially as a reaction to a suggestion that his proposal would logically entail posting it on all relevant articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that his documentary list would be proposed for all 25 articles found on that list wasn't a suggestion it was a suspicion, and I was right. THF confirmed that. That would have made THF's documentary ranking equal in importance to MoJo's rankings, and it would have been an importance Wikipedia alone would have bestowed upon it. It also would have put on 25 film article pages, "Michael Moore's Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too", the title of his "Documentary Rankings". THF saw no problem with this. Had it been my article, I would have made the proposal along the lines of my original COI guideline suggestion. I would have proposed, and let others debate it, interjecting to answer questions or clear up misconceptions. I wouldn't have done it the way THF did, which was as a juggernaut. He was implying that by not using his own work, the Sicko editors were once again proving left-wing bias, and violating policy. That, Luke, goes beyond the bounds of what I consider an acceptable way for a person with COI to make a proposal; but I don't think there is a useful way to codify that, which is why I backed down from the argument over my proposal (which I wasn't the only one who wrote that proposal, it was done in collusion with a neutral editor). --David Shankbone 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have followed up on any of the other pages. Does proposing on more than one talk page make it a "juggernaut," which is sanctionable? I'm not clear on the limits of what you or the arbitrators might consider sanctionable. How about an example: say that I proposed that this article be mentioned in articles on Larry H. Miller and EnergySolutions. This is basically my work that's been published in a reliable source, not unlike THF's list. Still, it has the patina of second-gen OR to it, like one might perceive in THF's article. Would I be breaking COI to suggest that it be mentioned in more than one article? What if I demanded it mention all articles listed? When does the COI guideline frown on it? What if I claimed that Wikipedia was promoting a pro-corporate agenda by denying my refs, does it become against the COI there? I simply don't see where acceptable good faith talk comments transmute into actionable COI. Cool Hand Luke 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. Consider this example from the Sicko talk archives: THF produces twelve sources of criticism for Sicko, including some conservative sources, but also including the Toronto Star, Washington Post, Business Week, and that bastion of right wing propaganda, MTV! Others objected, with reasoning that included "I assert that left-wing polemics, and left-wing criticisms of right-wing polemics, are generally more accurate, hence generally better represented in Wikipedia.", "Take it to Conservapedia", "Ted, if you want the relatively few right-wing screeds to get treated with undue weight, you'll find a happy home at Conservapedia." and "reception of avowed right-ring publications will be negative, " and later, "I think this dispute is a transparent attempt at Wikipedia:WikiLawyering a high weight to the conservative viewpoint that isn't actually related to the subject of this article but the Universal health care debate. I am not impressed, and it seems that most serious editors aren't either" implying that Ted was not a serious editor. Ted continued to pursue the point that there should be mention of the controversy in the lead paragraph based on multiple cited sources including even a new reference to the New York Times (a conservative rag if there ever was one), and all he got in response was POV-loaded arguments like the ones cited above - and he was the one accused of disruption and wikilawyering.

So, to summarize: THF argued the point on the talk page and backed it up with reliable mainstream references; others called his sources "right wing screeds", accused him of wikilawyering, and implied that his arguments were non-serious. Meanwhile, the article today includes criticism in the intro, which it should (does anybody really believe that Sicko is without controversy?) And for this, THF is being hounded off the project. Conclusion: the right wingers who accuse Wikipedia of bias might just have a point... ATren 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• THF's proposals had little to do with criticizing Sicko the film, but criticizing the organizations that Michael Moore, and many other organizations, governments, and IGO's rely upon for data. THF was tossing out 25 links at at time, inundating the Talk page with days-worth of homework to wade through. Most of ATren's and CHL's arguments above have been addressed, and ATren's in particular was discussed here on the Sicko page with THF. Again, it comes down to, "Agree with us, or you prove the bias against right-wing editors." THF's problem has been THF, not his ideology. It has been about the way he makes proposals, the way he tries to bully his point of view (including with his own work) and his contentious nature. None of us are in law school, Luke, and I don't think the arbitrators (or myself) are interesting in running through the nuance of socratic method hypotheticals. I think part of the problem is that the people who have advocated on behalf of THF (ATren and CHL) see nothing wrong with the way he has conducted himself, have made no proposals for how he could better edit, and condone everything he has done. Had THF not had an activist agenda, he would not have run into many of these problems; had he not revealed who he was, he would have been blocked for violating NPOV and agenda-pushing. --David Shankbone 12:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense! See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop#Disruptive point of view statements by THF, where I specifically disagreed with THF about the sometimes needlessly adversarial tone of his edits, and wrote my own proposal stating that Wikipedia policy frowns on it. At any rate, I posed a concrete hypothetical precisely to demonstrate how this ambiguity is a problem. At what point do talk page suggestions become COI problems? Cool Hand Luke 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• How do you think THF should have handled his proposal on Sicko? Do you think it was okay the way he went about it, including the arguments he raised? --David Shankbone 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the AEI

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

So many arguments you guys raise are strawmen. If THF hadn't told us who he was, he still would not have been successful in any regard. That he was from AEI, I feel, made people pay attention to his arguments more--it did for me. But if he wasn't from AEI things like the Moore hit piece fiasco would have been seen as the efforts of a loose canon editor with a weight problem. We shouldn't be giving editors who do the right thing--declaring their COI--carte blanche to do and say anything they want by rewarding them with deference. I believe THF would have been blocked had he not revealed who he was; I think he was given extraordinary latitude precisely because of who he is. --David Shankbone 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe he would have been blocked for his behavior? Where is this coming from? What blockable offense are you referring to? I'm sorry, but this is approaching the level of parody. Look at those talk pages. Look at some of the stuff other anonymous editors were saying to THF, and then tell me again with a straight face that he would have been blocked for his words! This would be positively hilarious if not for the fact that now we have two arb com members are endorsing this witch hunt. ATren 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren, multiple editors have supplied evidence of THF's problematic editing. You are welcome to review the evidence and workshop pages. --David Shankbone 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ATren, CHL, or myself are suggesting that THF's behaviour was never problematic, merely that it wasn't problematic to the extent that some are asserting. Given how high-profile the dispute became, if he had earned a block, wouldn't he have been blocked? SamBC(talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people think I earned a block, and I wasn't so much as warned of being blocked aside from a Raymond Arnitt and Georgewilliamherbert threatening both of us. I don't think the absence of a block means he didn't deserve a block. I don' think the absence of resistance to THF's edits made them NPOV, such as on Robert Bork. --David Shankbone 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) David, I've seen all the evidence, and I've commented on it, some of it (mildly) critical of THF. None of it approaches the level of a blockable offense, especially given what he's been subjected to. David, I opposed a ban for you, but honestly this level of piling on and revisionist history is starting to become very problematic for me. This was an overblown content dispute, and while THF was producing rock solid sources and playing by the rules, others were telling him to "take it to Conservapedia". Through all that crap, he remained relatively civil, and abided by consensus when neutral third parties disagreed with him (see the multiple RfCs he filed). And now, here, you and other have spent two weeks digging through his edit history and have produced, what, THREE questionable mainspace edits? And even those were marginally questionable. This is a witch hunt that has driven a valuble editor from the project, and yet here you are, continuing to pile on new unfounded accusations. It needs to stop. ATren 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to stop is the level of hyperbole that has reached breath-taking heights on THF's side. --David Shankbone 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to respond with real evidence of blockable offenses? No, I guess not, since you've already canvassed his entire edit history and the best you could come up with was a few minor civility transgressions. You're the one that continues to escalate, even after you've "retired" what, 3 times from this case? Ironically, early on you mocked THF for coming back from "retirement" and you are now approaching Roger Clemens territory here. It makes me wonder if perhaps you have a personal association with Michael Moore which you haven't yet revealed, because I can't understand how you can be so personally offended by THF's activities on the Sicko page. ATren 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Effects of this Decision

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

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

The strawman cometh again. --David Shankbone 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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