User talk:BenBurch/FailedRFC

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:AN/I discussion 1|2|3|4 (Not chronological)


 * Previous warnings placed on BenBurch's talk page (and routinely deleted by BenBurch):


 * RfC by Dino regarding the conduct of BenBurch. This RfC was deleted only because the second user to certify the dispute, Tbeatty, failed to provide proof that he had previously attempted to resolve the dispute; RfC was never decided on its own merits.


 * Note that this RfC was first certified by proxy by a banned user, then by a now-blocked puppet of the banned user with no significant edit history whatsoever, and only then (and in response to extensive canvassing) by one more editor who had not actually tried to resolve the dispute. Essentially of course, it was struck out as vexatious following a discussion on the admin noticeboard.  Leaving aside Hinnen's conflict of interest, his attempt to portray this as a problem of one editor is a gross misrepresentation of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether libelous material attributed to an author named TJ Walker should be included in the Free Republic article.
 * Whether inflammatory language such as "purged" should be used in an encyclopedia article about a political discussion talkboard.
 * Whether the Free Republic article violates WP:NPOV and should be edited so that its tone and content more closely parallels the Democratic Underground article.
 * Whether the conduct of certain editors, with regard to sockpuppet investigations and messages on Talk pages related to the Free Republic article, has been abusive and in violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA.
 * Whether the conduct of certain editors, with regard to such politically delicate articles as Free Republic, has been a violation of WP:OWN.
 * Whether certain editors have been pursuing a political agenda in violation of WP:NPOV, editing articles about conservative political figures and organizations (such as Free Republic) to make them more negative, and articles about liberal political figures and organizations (such as Democratic Underground) to make them more positive.
 * Whether the final judgment of an Unblock-en-l committee consisting of three administrators, which has exhaustively reviewed evidence over a ten-day period (including evidence e-mailed directly to them and not made public on the Unblock-en-l list), should be accepted by other editors regarding their sockpuppet accusations against DeanHinnen. Dino 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd party response

 * 1) The assertion that the material is libellous may or may not be true.
 * 2) Whether language such as "purged" is inflammatory or not is a subjective judgement.
 * 3) WP:NPOV is decided on a case by case basis, not by pruning the amount of verifiable criticism until it is as small as that in some other article, whether chosen arbitrarily or on the basis of existing off-Wikipedia disputes.
 * 4) Accusations of incivility may be balanced by accusations of legal threats, disruption, conflict of interest and general vexatiousness against other editors - to suggest that problems of civility and policy /  guideline violation apply only to one side of this dispute is plainly false.
 * 5) "Whether certain editors have been pursuing a political agenda in violation of WP:NPOV, editing articles about conservative political figures and organizations (such as Free Republic) to make them more negative, and articles about liberal political figures and organizations (such as Democratic Underground) to make them more positive." - the two could just as easily be switched.  This is a bipartisan off-Wiki dispute brought to WIkipedia, both sides are involved and both sides exhibit fault.
 * 6) final judgment is not a "committee" judgement, it's three admins who decided to WP:AGF and give Dean Hinnen a chance as the "brother" of a banned user, on the basis that he promised not to be disruptive.  Thus far he has been nothing but disruptive, including posting an RfC which he "certified" by proxy on behalf of banned User:BryanFromPalatine and then proceeded to canvass.  Dean is treading on ever-thinner ice in this regard.

This is a bipartisan off-Wiki dispute brought to Wikipedia. Dean Hinnen claims to be the legal representative of one of the parties involved. His actions are seen by a number of admins as problematic, and that includes those who were a party to the discussions on the unblock list. I have no doubt that you will not be fooled by the slant that Hinnen puts on the dispute in his summary above, but he does appear to have forgotten to mention the off-Wiki dispute and his conflict of interest, so in fairness they need to be stated. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As one of the three editors mentioned by JzG above, I would like to certify JzG's following comments as accurate: "final judgment is not a "committee" judgement, it's three admins who decided to WP:AGF and give Dean Hinnen a chance as the "brother" of a banned user, on the basis that he promised not to be disruptive." It was not the intention of any of these three editors (as far as I am aware) to pass off the unblocking of DeanHinnen as anything other than this.  Specifically, this was not a consensus of "all admins" such as one might claim after discussing the matter on WP:ANI or some such.  I am unsure whether or not unblock-en-l should be classed as a committee.  Nobody elected or even appointed us.  However, to the best of my knowledge (and the list archives are still public), there was no significant dispute about unblocking DeanHinnen at the time.  I am expressing no opinions on Hinnen's edits since the unblock, only certifying JzG's quoted statement as an accurate depiction.  --Yamla 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated
This section is for the other party to add any issues that are not included above. User bullet points to add additional issues. This is not a response to the issues set out above, nor is it an opportunity to make a statment of the party's opinion, describe another user's actions, or state the history of the dispute. Only issues are to be added; as above, commentary on persons, rather than issues, will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Excessive or spurrious commentary will also be removed. (Once again, only committee members may remove text from the RfM page.)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated
This section is for the other party to add any issues that are not included above. User bullet points to add additional issues. This is not a response to the issues set out above, nor is it an opportunity to make a statment of the party's opinion, describe another user's actions, or state the history of the dispute. Only issues are to be added; as above, commentary on persons, rather than issues, will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Excessive or spurrious commentary will also be removed. (Once again, only committee members may remove text from the RfM page.)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.


 * Accept. Dino 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject as I have agreed to not have anything to do with this article for at least two weeks. --BenBurch 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Rejected: Parties do not agree to mediate.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Shyam  ( T / C ) 09:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)