Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision

May I make a comment? I share Grunt's discomfort with Fred's "journalistic reports of recent events in the political spectrum". The conflicts arise specifically around "US foreign policy". Could a formulation be made along these lines? Thanks, -- Viajero 15:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I realize my expression is rather awkward, but some of the disputed material has nothing at all to do with US foreign policy, for example the Isle of Youth and Fidel Castro articles. Fred Bauder 21:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

see bottom of the page for more on this. J. Parker Stone 03:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nation

There seems to be an implicit assumption in this proposed decision that The Nation is an untrustworthy news source, and that assumption seems to be made on no other basis than the fact that its editorial stance is well to the left of the U.S. mainstream. This strikes me as rather odd. Like most reputable publications, The Nation distinguishes between editorials and reporting (actually, The Nation distinguishes among editorials, commentary (the equivalent of op-eds), reporting, reviews, columns, etc. and has quite specific standards for each. They are more or less a model for disclosure of possible reportorial conflicts of interest.

Just as the Wall Street Journal's right-wing editorial stance doesn't tarnish them as a news source, neither should The Nation's left-wing editorial stance be viewed that way. It is possible for a periodical to have both strong editorial politics and honest reporting. It is not as if we were talking about something sourced from the Christic Institute, or Larouche's followers, or Stormfront. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that my attitude toward Nation got into the parts of the proposed decision which I wrote. I didn't mean for it to and welcome suggestions as to rephrasing. Fred Bauder 09:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fred, from The Nation was accurately cited as being from The Nation. I don't know you well enough to know what your "attitude toward Nation" would be, but I am trying to understand. Reading the project page, there seems to be an implicit assumption that The Nation is not a strong source. Or do I misread you entirely? Assuming I have not misunderstood, are you saying that it is not a generally trustworthy source of facts? Or that its selection of facts might be overly influenced by its editorial line? Or what? And, in particular, would you put it in a different category in these respects than the WSJ, New York Times, New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers? Or would those be equally suspect sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Although I rely on the NYT, I do not trust Nation as a source of objective information, mainly because in RL I do not trust those who cite it. (I don't read Atlantic Monthly or Harpers enough to have a developed opinion.) With respect to the Haiti story, what other media picked up that story or independently confirmed it? Fred Bauder 10:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

FRAPH's leader confirmed that group's paramilitary commanders were on the CIA payroll on CBS's "60 Minutes" in 1995, according to a report in the Miami Herald, 1 August 2001. [1]. There was also an article in the Herald of February 27, 2005, on this matter, "U.S. HAS DONE ENOUGH IN HAITI". Alas, it isn't possible to view the Herald articles because accessing the online archive now costs $. -- Viajero | Talk 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Closest I could get on the Times is this archived article which seems to closely follow the official US line. Fred Bauder 12:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a really bad idea to have Wiki essentially "outlaw" certain publications from the political left and political right as being untrustworthy. Leftwing publications including The Nation, Mother Jones, and The Progressive all have very good track records for producing accurate investigative reporting. Rightwing publications including the National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and The National Interest also produce accurate information outside of editorial policy. In addition, the specific reporter who writes the article is a factor. As a longstanding member of the group Investigative Editors and Journalists, and someone who has written for the Columbia Journalism Review and several other media criticism publications, I strongly object to arbitration decisions that appear to incorporate such arbitrary political bias.--Cberlet 12:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly second Cberlet's comments. The Arbitration Committee explicitly does not determine content, although Fred has attempted to do so on numerous occasions. Considering his position as an arbitrator and his own personal biases, I suggest that he should be particularly careful to keep them in check in this area (and that if he cannot, that he should recuse on the grounds that his political beliefs are interfering with his arbitration work). Ambi 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As can probably be gathered from my remarks above, I also agree with Cberlet, and with his emphasis that this is equally true of publications left and right. And, I'd add, center. A partisan editorial stance (be it left, right, or center), is not necessarily evidence of playing fast and loose with the facts in one's reportage. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Relying on any single newspaper for objective information probably isn't wise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactamundo, which is why i objected to Viajero's FRAPH article being lifted almost entirely from Nairn and Blum. J. Parker Stone 07:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Conflating Allan Nairn and William Blum as a single source is preposterous; they are different kinds of writers. Nairn is an investigative journalist who has done a lot of first-hand reporting in places like East Timor. Blum is a researcher whose texts on the USG's foreign interventions draw heavily on reports in the mainstream media, as his copious endnotes indicate. You have been repeatedly invited to find other credible sources for information on FRAPH. However, if there are none, this does not give you licence to rewrite the article along the lines of your interpretation of events, as you have repeatedly tried to do. This is called original research. -- Viajero | Talk 12:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

question for ArbCom re. external documentation

When arriving at a decision, does the Arbitration Committee take into account external material cited on Evidence or does it confine itself strictly to the diffs and so on listed on that page? I ask because the current RfC on Trey Stone contains much material not included the Evidence page, such as his numerous 3RR violations (eight since the RfC was opened on May 9), and vice versa; in fact, the RfC and the ArbCom evidence is largely complementary; there is little overlap. I can copy & paste that information onto Evidence, but I'd rather not if it is not necessary. Thanks, -- Viajero | Talk 12:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Without indicting all arbitrators, my experience is that we are overwealmed with the volume of evidence, much of which lacks focus. The result is that we dig into it until we find something we can hang a decision on, but seldom go through all of it. This phenomenon mirrors what happens in an actual court or administrative proceeding. Anyone's attention and patience is limited as is the time that can be set aside to condider even the most important matter. To answer your question, the problem is to succintly present your case focusing especially on diffs which strongly demonstrate the problem you see. That increases the probablity that arbitrators will look at it and incorporate it into the decision. One experience I had which was an eyeopener for me was a type of administrative proceding which require that all evidence be presented in half an hour and to be set forth in binders which was prepared for the hearing officers. It seemed almost impossible, but after focusing on the really important points which had to be made to prove the case, actually improved what happened. The downside of this sort of thing is that only expert litigators can adequately present a case, not a good outcome for Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 13:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your specific question, it is quite clear from the edit history of the articles which are in contention that Trey Stone (and his opponents) did a great deal of sterile reverting which was not accompanied by efforts on talk pages to resolve the issues. Putting a large number of diffs which show this into the evidence page is probably not helpful. Fred Bauder 13:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I can imagine that a kind of diff burnout sets in after reviewing a couple of cases. Fear not, I won't inflict any more diffs on you. ;) However, I have just now added a line to my section of Evidence which makes explicit my hope that the ArbCom will take at least a cursory glance at the RfC, which we have been keeping up to date with the recurring 3RR blocks and the like. -- Viajero | Talk 14:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment re. two proposed remedies

Fred, I am reluctant to appear overly eager to influence the outcome of this case, particularly given the fact that not all the arbitrators have weighed in, but certain aspects of the proposed remedies trouble me, in particular these items:

Removal of ill-referenced information
2) Information added to articles concerning journalistic reports of recent
events in the political spectrum that is poorly referenced or not referenced  
at all may be removed on sight by individuals other than Trey Stone, 
Davenbelle, and Viajero.

Ban on removing well-referenced information
3) Trey Stone, Davenbelle, and Viajero are forbidden from removing
information added to articles  concerning journalistic reports of recent 
events in the political spectrum which is well-referenced and are 
subject to twenty-four hour blocks should they do so.

When I submitted evidence in this case, I was well aware that it made me a de facto protagonist as well; this is clearly indicated. I have no problem with that as I stand behind my edits to the articles and my comments on the Talk pages. However, given that the none of other participants in this case have presented evidence that I have indeed engaged in such behaviour nor has the ArbCom itself explicitly indicated this has been the case, I feel I am being unfairly tarred with the same brush. In other words, it appears that the ArbCom will sanction me for simply taking part. I am, as you know, not a party, formally speaking, to the case; but if the evidence I contribute "incriminates" me, it also incriminates others; why not also sanction Mel Etitis, Grace Note, Commandante, and other editors who have reverted Trey Stone? This is a rhetorical question; I am not in the least interested seeing other valuable editors have their wings clipped. Rather, it just seems to me that you are "shooting the messenger". Is this a precedent you want to set? -- Viajero | Talk 15:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The remedies you quote are not my work, but Grunts. I don't know why he thinks you ought to be included, when you have shown great restraint in editing these articles and have generally attempted to discuss controversial edits. Another thing that troubles me is that the editing requirement proposed for you three applies already to all edits to all articles, poorly referenced material may be removed by any person and well referenced material should not be. Fred Bauder 15:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

ahh, sorry, I didn't see that he had started the remedies section. In any case, I hope that he will read these comments at some point. -- Viajero | Talk 16:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Response to Ambi

Regarding your charges, I have not created sockpuppets in about 6 months; this is irrelevant, anyway, since the case is about me, Viajero, and Davenbelle, not old stuff with 172. I have been uncivil but I have let up on it as of late. And as for "causing trouble," these guys have caused just as much "trouble" as I have, citing blatantly left-biased sources ("An International Guide to CIA Death Squads"??) and then reverting back to their preferred "facts." Just because there's tended to be more people RV warring in their favor doesn't change the fact that their edits are biased, and, in the case of Davenbelle, they revert without discussion. I have detailed their "lack of sources" (which they frequently accuse me of) and their misuse of sources (despite the fact that you claim there is "no evidence") that are essentially anti-American editorials from the far Left (Chomsky, Blum, Nairn, etc.) If they had something like an NYT or WaPo article it'd be different, because they'd have respectable sources backing up their claims. But if they continue to link to unreliable sources, their claims are controversial and should be treated as such. J. Parker Stone 03:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Basically, my point is that there is a tendency in these articles to present a certain perspective (though someone like Nairn may not be as radical as Chomsky & co., though he's close) as if it's the undisputed truth. And the simple fact is that some of these guys are just not taken seriously by anyone accept their supporters, so it is difficult to find a specific piece that contradicts their findings (hence, in the Haiti matter I simply link to an article detailing the fact that Clinton officially supported Aristide, which these guys keep removing) J. Parker Stone 03:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I had heard of Ralph McGehee -- I knew he was an ex-CIA officer with 25 years of service who wrote a memoir, Inside the Company, detailing the evolution of his disillusionment with that organization -- I had never seen An International Guide to CIA Death Squads. Fortunately, it is online [2] and I could take a look. It is essentially a bibliography of data on CIA interventions listed by country. What are the sources McGehee draws on? Here is a sample:

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• Washington Times
• Newsweek
• The Nation
• Atlantic Monthly
• The Progressive
• Gentleman Spy, a biography of Allen Dulles, former chief of the CIA
• a number of scholarly books and journals
• testimony to a US Senate Subcommittee

Looks to me like exactly the kind of "respectable sources" Trey wants. And strangely enough, these are precisely the type of sources that Chomsky and Blum draw on. But how does Trey react when confronted with references to these authors? With ad hoc arguments based on his beliefs that the information reported by them cannot possibly be correct. As he has been repeatedly told by me and other editors, this falls under Wikipedia's injunction against original research. If his constant and continual reverts to his versions of articles based on this kind of intellectually impoverished reasoning does not constitute disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, then that policy has no meaning. -- Viajero | Talk 12:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good Viajero, but it doesn't change their radical politics (recall that Chomsky is a self-admitted libertarian socialist and admirer of '30s Spanish anarchism.) I could pick an ultraconservative author who draws on objective sources but that doesn't change the fact that they're ultraconservative. Suppose, for example, I quoted from a WaPo article that says "300 Iraqi insurgents died today from an American counterinsurgency operation" and then I comment "so the genocide against the freedom fighters continues." Now this is an oversimplification, but it illustrates the point that you can draw on objective sources and still provide biased (and at times misleading -- by snipping quotes or otherwise) info. 64.7.89.54 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) And I mean, just the title of McGehee's site pretty much says it. Any objective observer knows that not every organization backed by the U.S. during the Cold War is considered a "death squad" by citizens in this country or even citizens from the countries from which the groups originated. 64.7.89.54 02:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone, here's my take on the situation. Having little experience with actual radicals in the flesh, you presume that they are more tricksters than true believers. That they know that innocents by the million will die should they prevail, but simply bull on in full knowledge of the disaster in store. The actual situation is that many of them have had no actual contact with a totalitarian Communist system and do not believe the stories of refugees and survivors because they are incredible, unbelievable that those who support peace, justice and equality would end up engaged in mass murder. Having decided that they are in bad faith, you then decide you do not need to be courteous, do not need to carefully consider the arguments they advance and references they offer, and that dialogue is fruitless. While there have been folks who advocate peace and justice who are putting it on (for example, Soviet functionaries), it is not expected that they are to be found among Wikipedia editors. They are simply folks who, either at their mother's knee, or as the result of personal experiences or their social milieu have developed a commitment to what they believe to be true. They will earnestly advance that truth and when treated with disrespect retaliate in kind.

I do not mean to say that what they advance is to be treated as gospel, or to prevail without contradiction, simply, that it has its place in Wikipedia. I do not give Nation much credence but millions of people do and it is a more than sufficient reference. Nor do I give anything uttered by George W. Bush or the CIA the benefit of the doubt, but tens of millions of people do.

The bottom line is that you will treat other Wikipedia editors with respect or be banned from editing controversial political articles. Fred Bauder 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have been letting up on my attacks as of late and I have not repeated the kind of sockpuppetry I engaged in late last year. and I don't doubt the "noble intentions" of several radicals -- that doesn't mean I can't find their commentary despicable or wrong. for instance, while i think Chomsky is an intellectual moron who draws patently absurd conclusions from U.S. foreign policy, i'm sure he believes what he says. 64.7.89.54 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Padangbai

Hi All. I am able to access wiki while I'm traveling. I did not mean to suggest in my note to Ambi that this case should be placed on hold for the duration (I'm booked for months). I will not be editing much but will attend to this case nearly every day. I've just realized that wikipedia doesn't have an article on Padangbai (google) -- a lack I will be correcting next week. Best, Davenbelle 04:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

see also: Image:Padangbai Secret Beach 1.jpg && Image:Padangbai Secret Beach Belle 1.jpg — Davenbelle July 1, 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Trey Stone blocked indefinitely--temporarily lifted

• 01:29, 15 Jun 2005 Neutrality blocked "Trey Stone" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandalism, trolling.)

Trey Stone asked me to review this block but I declined for a variety of reasons unrelated to the merits. I asked on WP:ANI to see if anyone else was interested in examining the case. There were no takers. Because I doubt that his behavior is so disruptive as to pose an imminent threat to Wikipedia, I am taking the liberty of lifting the block until the conclusion of this arbitration case. This isn't intended to reflect on the merits of the original block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...much to the detriment of the Noam Chomsky ^hist article. — Davenbelle 03:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

says you. i trust you'll actually discuss changes rather than engaging in summary blind reversion as per your usual behavior. J. Parker Stone 04:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

says I and others; it would seem that my help in opposing you on the Noam Chomsky article is not needed. Davenbelle 02:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

One-year ban?

i suggest you look at the recent RVs of 172, and tell me he is not doing as much (if not more) "aggressive RVing" than me. as i have said i am limiting myself in editting and discuss changes on the Talk pages. this is absurd. J. Parker Stone 22:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is not before us. This will give you time to hit the books and do some research. Fred Bauder 02:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

fine, then Davenbelle. there has been no one who has done as much unexplained RVing and shown such an aversion to discussion as him.

and i have a bunch of other stuff to Bauder, this isn't a profession. J. Parker Stone 04:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and you guys still have not shown how what I have done is in any way worse than what these guys've done. ask Tony Sidaway about it, i think you'll find that he's let me off a few times, and this last time he hasn't agreed with 172 and El C's charges against me, which are similar to the overblown allegations of Ambi and others in this arbitration. (I reiterate that the sockpuppetry is not relevant to this arbitration as it happened 6 months ago in conflict with 172) J. Parker Stone 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems an appropriate remedy. — Davenbelle 02:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problem with the proposed one-year ban on editing political articles--not that my opinion matters, this is an arbcom affair. It would give him the opportunity to learn courtesy and good editing discipline, away from the naturally inflammatory environment of political editing. I don't agree that others have been as aggressive or more aggressive than Trey and I don't find his manipulation of my disagreement with 172 and El_C amusing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. — Davenbelle 04:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

once again, no one has provided ANY evidence that I have been more "aggressive" outside of their own personal opinion. Davenbelle in particular has never discussed edits. and i didn't mean to manipulate anything. i was just pointing out that you had disagreed with them last time.

i don't see how a one-year ban is gonna make any more difference than, say, a one-month ban. J. Parker Stone 04:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that I don't constantly refer to other people's edits as "POV vandalism" and have not flamed anyone in ages. J. Parker Stone 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and if you look at my recent edits, outside of the recent ordeal over at Talk:Robert Mugabe (which happened in part because I was under the mistaken impression that you could automatically remove insults) i think you'll see that my behavior has improved markedly. of course i still get into editting conflicts, but only because there are legitimate disagreements over the kind of content that should be in an article. J. Parker Stone 05:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My impression, without doing extensive research, is that there is a great improvement. I hope that if this partial ban passes you continue to improve and when you return to editing political articles that you are prepared to back up your edits with citations to substantial references. Fred Bauder 14:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

this is far more than a "partial ban." as i said, i don't see how shortening the ban to one or two months would make much difference. and if there's been a "great improvement" (i thank you for the compliment) why is this one-year restriction needed on me, but not summary RVers like Davenbelle? he has made NO efforts to make his case on Talk pages, as I have documented J. Parker Stone 20:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Mugabe mess seems to have resulted from an honest misreading of policy by Trey Stone. WP:NPA does mention that some editors remove personal insults and I think he mistook this for WP:RPA, without realizing that the latter is somewhat controversial and needs to be done with tact and discretion. Of course, if Trey learns tact and discretion and continues to exercise them we won't have a problem any more. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Trey Stone wrote above:

once again, no one has provided ANY evidence that I have been more "aggressive" outside of their own personal opinion.

I for one have extensively documented your behaviour, first in the RfC and then in this ArbCom case. You may wish to disregard this evidence but clearly others aren't. -- Viajero | Talk 15:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) the problem is your evidence doesn't take into account the fact that i no longer use sockpuppets or RV over the limit without discussion. J. Parker Stone 20:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remedies

A one-year ban strikes me as a pretty good idea, but I'd like to humbly suggest that with or without it, several of ArbCom's other standard remedies might also be called for. Specifically, I think there's clear grounds for a personal attack parole ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]), limiting reverts to one a day (see the edit histories of Noam Chomsky, El Salvador, Henry Kissinger, History of the United States (1988-present), among others), and requiring meaningful edit summaries ([13] [14] [15] [16]). RadicalSubversiv E 07:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

of those, only 5 and 10 constitute personal attacks. J. Parker Stone 07:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that being said, i would not object to the aforementioned restrictions, as they at least let me make some edits, rather than completely banning me from political articles where i have discussed changes. and i realize this is not for me to decide, but i'm just making my case J. Parker Stone 07:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not personal attacks? Just out of curiosity, how would you describe referring to those with whom you disagree as "Marxist apologists", "Russkom", "illiterate", "an obnoxious knowitall kid leftist", "jackalope", and "Castro sycophants"? And I assume you were being sarcastic when you said "Nice try, impartial admin" to AndyL and "I hope you don't act like this in RL, or you probably don't have friends" to WebLuis? RadicalSubversiv E 04:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Marxist apologists" -- because they constantly defend Communist regimes? "Russkom" -- this is not inflammatory, even if it's not all serious. "Illiterate" -- said as a joke because some prolific RVer kept calling me illiterate. "an obnoxious knowitall kid leftist" -- borderline. "jackalope" -- jackalopes are playful creatures. "Castro sycophants" -- i don't see how this is any different than being called a "far-rightwinger," which i have been, more than once. the last two are, likewise, not insults -- sarcasm is not a crime. J. Parker Stone 04:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to add any more remedies but others might and I might vote for them. However, I think the present proposed ban is more than enough. Fred Bauder 14:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

once again i ask you to look at Davenbelle's edits and tell me how i am in any way shape or form more "destructive" than his unexplained, pathological RVing. this decision has been driven by personal bias. Ambi herself has used "sockpuppet hell" as part of the rationale, even though it is not relevant, and Neutrality blocked me indefinitely on very shaky grounds. i have cleaned up my act and would ask for a lighter sentence. J. Parker Stone 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too little, too late. When I opened the RfC on you, which was eventually endorsed by like a dozen other users, it would have been an excellent moment for you to reflect upon your behaviour and try to improve it, to try to see yourself as others see you. Instead, your behaviour got in many ways worse; you went on numerous revert binges, getting 8 or 9 24h 3RR blocks and so on. The RfC had no teeth to it, so it didn't matter to you. But now that the ArbCom is finally talking about real sanctions, like a year-long ban on articles related to politics, which I wholeheartedly support, you are simply being more careful. This suggests to me that you only respond to the stick and not the carrot, that you basically don't understand what problem is. And that is a great pity. -- Viajero | Talk 10:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't appreciate the condescending tone. and i have improved over the past two months -- RFA or no. this is unnecessary. J. Parker Stone 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The basic issue here, Trey, is that you have been making highly POV edits to numerous articles based on your personal opinions without citing sources and have not attempted to work with the numerous editors who have opposed you. Your history of sockpuppet use and constant personal attacks are all well documented and are quite relevant to this case. You have been cautioned, warned, and blocked many times and revert (pun intended) to your usual behavior as soon as the coast seems clear to you. You have not significantly changed your editing tactics for any significant length of time.

My advice to you would be to accept the intent of the ban on political articles, clear your watchlist, and find some other subject to center your editing on. If you can not do this, it seems clear to me that your entire purpose here is to wage POV-war against "leftist, Marxist, Anti-American" content on Wikipedia.

— Davenbelle 03:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

this coming from the guy who made blatant POV edits on "corporate media" about a month ago, please don't lecture me about POV. J. Parker Stone 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my point was that that stuff has passed and i have improved my behavior greatly. and my objective on wikipedia is to edit out POV, and i choose to focus on subjects of interest (in my case, politics.) nothing wrong with that. J. Parker Stone 03:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Improved" behavior such as this personal attack: "rming OCD rv stalking" made 43 minutes after your above post? — Davenbelle 08:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

you guys have an extremely low standard for "personal attacks," huh? maybe grow a little thicker skin and don't RV-stalk (which you do, w/o discussion) J. Parker Stone 08:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy here does not require thicker skins, it requires civility -- which you choose not to use. — Davenbelle 09:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

i apologize if i get a little frustrated when you constantly RV my edits w/o discussion. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Trey Stone wrote above:

i have improved over the past two months

At this point, it is your word against our diffs. While the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion, it appears that there is a very real possibility that latter may weigh more heavily than the former when the ArbCom makes its final decision . -- Viajero | Talk 20:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey, you have changed and hopefully will change more and originally I put my ass on the line based on that, but my conversations with you regarding researching and citing references brought me to the conclusion that you are not ready to edit in this area. If all you do is error you don't belong on first base. The most acute and intelligent original analysis cannot substitute for sound research. Fred Bauder 20:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fred, how in the world is asking 172 to back up his claim about U.S. involvement "original research"? if it's such a known fact there should be a source saying so. the burden of proof is on him, not me. this has nothing to do with orig. research, and i have been citing sources for my edits as of late. J. Parker Stone 21:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is also required to cite references. Fred Bauder 21:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

my point basically is i don't see how the Rios Montt article has anything to do with this case. i am not making new claims in that article; if i was, and i wasn't citing sources, then we'd have an issue. J. Parker Stone 21:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Trey has shown a positive attitude but still needs to improve. He chooses to edit in one of the most demanding editing environments available on Wikipedia, and does so with acknowledged political affiliations; others editing the same articles have similar strong political views and such situations demand the utmost tact and self-reflection, which many otherwise good Wikipedia editors would find it difficult to muster. While he has in the [ast acted out of clear malice, with sock puppets and what appeared to be deliberate attempts to goad other editors, he has cleaned up his act considerably in the past three months or so. Much more needs to be done. I would support a ban on editing political articles because he is a good editor and has much to offer Wikipedia, while he builds his self-control. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 28 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

i appreciate it. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

speed of arbitration etc.

Trey Stone is obviously an abusive user, with sock puppets, insulting behavior, 3RR rule breaking and so on and so forth. He was just blocked two days ago for breaking the 3RR.

One problem I see with the current arbitration process with users like this, a problem I have a suggested solution for, is that the arbitration process takes a long time. Trey Stone's RFC page was created on May 9th, which was after enough time to gather evidence for an RFC. On May 12th arbitration for Stone started. It is now June 28th, and Trey Stone has been blocked 8 times since the arbitration started.

While I'm glad he has been blocked 5 times since for violating the 3RR, and 3 times for other reasons, he is still running around and causing havoc. I feel this is similar to the User:VeryVerily case. In that case, VeryVerily was repeatedly violating the 3RR and so forth. VeryVerily used to go through my edit history and revert everything I did as well (which he did to many users). Once I left a message on Very Verily's talk page, which he erased and said "get off of my talk page". After that case I stopped communicating with him. Later, when VeryVerily was being arbitrated against, I was dragged into the arbitration at the last moment and told to discuss changes on talk pages. This is something I did already, although with what I felt VeryVerily's cutting of communication, never discussing things on talk pages and so forth, I did not always discuss changes on talk pages if it was *solely* VeryVerily reverting me, when he used to go through my edit history (along with others edit histories) and revert every edit we made. I was banned for a week (VeryVerily was banned for two weeks). VeryVerily had a number of restrictions placed on him, I was told just to discuss changed on talk pages.

The problem is these arbitrations go on, and I'm afraid of Trey Stone trying to suck me into his dispute. So far Davenbelle, Viajero, 172, Mel Etitis have been dragged into this due to Trey Stone's rampage and I'm afraid he's trying to drag me in too. Unlike Trey Stone, I do not violate the 3RR. The majority of users, even those with different points of view, are usually reasonable. I had some disagreements with User:Husnock over the Vietnam pages, but I think we have come to a nice compromise, and I (and others) think the layout is better now as well. There are a small amount of users like User:TDC and User:Adam Carr who I feel are too ideologically rigid to do NPOV properly, but they are just no where near the 3RR-violating, sock-puppetry and edit warring of people like Trey Stone.

My suggestion is to have more "temporary injunctions" during arbitrations. While Trey Stone is running around, I feel he is making me a worse user. I would like suggestions from the arbitrators of what to do with Trey Stone reverting all of my edits. With VeryVerily, who said to me "get off of my talk page", I was told I was not discussing my edits enough with him (he never discussed things on talk pages, violated the 3RR etc.) With Trey Stone, his comments on the discussion pages are just insults of other users, which have been listed on his RFC page and the evidence page. To me, Trey Stone's behavior and insults have made it so I just want to see ArbCom decide against him, and I think discussion with him is pointless, as it is just a barrage of insults by him. On the other hand, if any other user other than him reverts me, I always discuss it. Anyhow, any advice is helpful, I don't want to be dragged into this like VeryVerily dragged me into his case. I wish there were more temporary injunctions or "conditions of bail pending trial" in these ArbCom cases, because if Trey Stone was under the proposed remedies right now, he'd have a lot less success in his attempts to drag me down to his level. Ruy Lopez 28 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)

i have clarified with Geni that I would not have made the 4th RV on Fidel Castro (which was past 24 hours) if I thought it would be construed as "gaming the system." having said that I have not made a 3RR violation in quite some time. and no Mr. Lopez I have not thrown a "barrage of insults" at you or anyone else as of late, and no I'm not trying to "drag you into this." i will edit your attempts of revisionism on Indochina-related articles, however, as I have every right to do so. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Trey Stone mentions his block for violating the 3RR two days ago but says that aside from that he has "not made a 3RR violation in quite some time". But even excluding his block two days ago, he has been blocked four times since this arbitration began for violating the 3RR (plus 3 more bans for other reasons). In his mind that is "quite some time". Ruy Lopez 28 June 2005 23:19 (UTC)

however much time it has been, i have been staying within the 3RR as of late, and there have been a few instances where i have accidentally made 4 RVs because i didn't pay enough attention to the timestamps on my past RVs. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

VeryVerily used to go through my edit history and revert everything I did as well

please, this applies more to you than anyone else -- you have RVed my edits and refused to back up your changes on Talk (while I have done so.) J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

You may be more careful about violating the 3RR, but your incessant edit-warring has caused pages such as Fidel Castro, Efraín Ríos Montt, and History of the United States (1988-present) to be protected, seriously disrupting Wikipedia. I think Ruy Lopez's suggestion regarding temporary injunctions is an excellent one and I am glad to see that Fred has adopted it. Let's hope the other ArbCom members ratify it quickly. -- Viajero | Talk 29 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)

See this is where your bias is clear -- 172 has been as involved in the RV wars as I have. Now maybe you guys'd like it if your style of editting (which I view as biased toward the U.S. and favorable toward leftist governments) went unchallenged, but we have engaged in discussion on Talk, I have explained my edits, and my RVs are no more "disruptive" than his. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

The 3RR doesn't mean "it's fine to revert three times every 24 hours without seeking to discuss." It's drawing a firm line at the point where serial reverting becomes an actionable offense. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 15:33 (UTC)

OK, well I guess I took the rule a little literally because I wouldn't have made the RV if i knew it'd be construed as "gaming" the system. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Davenbelle

I got to wandering why I did not "get after" Davenbelle when I worked on this decision. I assume he has a leftist point of view and may be engaged in POV editing. What you complained about was him reverting your edits. Generally he did nothing wrong by reverting you because your work is both point of view and not referenced, original research. If your edits had cited sources the result might have been very different, but Davenbelle was not removing referenced information. Fred Bauder July 1, 2005 12:25 (UTC)

my problem with Davenbelle comes out of the fact that the vast majority of his edits are reversions of mine, whether they're controversial or relatively minor. check a couple pages of his contributions and you'll see what I'm talking about.

of course, if i knew there wasn't any official policy against this (or general POV except in the most blatant cases, which Davenbelle has not done) i wouldn't've have requested this arbitration in the first place. (though apparently, it can be termed "wikistalking" depending on the circumstances.)

btw fred, check your email if you could when you read this. thanks. J. Parker Stone 23:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

"politics" is extremely broad. my edits have generally been confined to articles on the Cold War, communism, and American foreign policy. infact i wouldn't say generally -- they -have- been confined to those three categories. point being, it's in these specific categories where problems have occurred, not general politics. J. Parker Stone 03:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that the intent is to cover those very areas; the ones where you have come into conflict with a host of other users. I, of course, welcome clarification of the intended scope. — Davenbelle 08:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Corporate media

I'm a little perplexed that Fred thinks this is the biggest deal. None of the changes on that page were citation-related, they all had to do with language. J. Parker Stone 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration speed

I know it's summer but can we wrap this case up plz? kthx J. Parker Stone 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)