THF drama

<big>'''Case Opened''' on 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)</big>

<big>'''Case Closed''' on 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)</big>

<div style="text-align: right;"><small><font style="background: white">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&action=watch '''1'''], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Evidence&action=watch '''2'''], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Workshop&action=watch '''3'''], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Proposed_decision&action=watch '''4''']</span></font></small></div>

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|Talk page]], and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at [[/Evidence]]. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at [[/Workshop]]. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at [[/Proposed decision]].

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the [[#Log of blocks and bans]] as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification]].

==Involved parties==
*{{admin|JzG}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|THF}}
*{{userlinks|DavidShankBone}}

== Statement by [[User:JzG]]==

* [[User:THF]] has recently changed username; his previous username was his real name and that identifies him (as he acknowleedges) as the author of some trenchant criticism of [[Michael Moore]]
* There was a dispute between THF and David Shankbone over the article {{la|Sicko}}, which has been the focus of offsite criticism written by THF and published in The American [http://www.american.com/archive/2007/august-0807/more-fudged-michael-moore-numbers]
* The external dispute and the on-Wiki dispute have merged to the extent of Moore's website attacking THF, which...
* Led to an argument over whether Moore's website is therefore an attack site, which came out as "no" as long as links are not used to harass THF
* The dispute over THF's article was settled as not including or citing it.

At this point: THF has accepted consensus not to include the link, but the dispute over his continued editing of Moore-related articles refuses to die.  Some think that THF should avoid issues of conflict of interest by not editing articles in respect of Moore, since THF's day job includes writing critical pieces about Moore.  THF does not accept that, and has some supporters in that.

Result: Impasse.

Many thousands of bytes of debate with several dozen admins active have not resolved this, and it is not fundamentally a user-to-user dispute, since the user-to-user issues can be resolved by the users leaving each other alone and if necessary application of the [[WP:TROUT|Wikitrout]], but the question of whether THF may be considered to have a conflict of interest remains to be settled, and it's not clear to me who can settle it other than ArbCom, as THF asserts there is no conflict, and some admins agree, and some disagree.

[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy]] says: ''It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial.''  THF appears to be pursuing an activist agenda, has a professional and financial commitment to the subject of Moore, and the subject is controversial.

On the other hand, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2]] says ''A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.''

Cards on the table, I think that being his day job plus the off-wiki dispute puts it beyond a strong point of view and into a conflict of interest, at least to the point that THF should probably restrict himself to the Talk pages of Moore related articles, but it could be called either way.

I want to stress that apart from occasional forgiveable lapses neither party has done anything to earn a block or other sanction, it's settlement of the issue of whether this is a material conflict of interest that's needed.  This is not, as ATren suggests, ''punishing'' THF for disclosing his viewpoint and identity, it's ''thanking'' him for doing so and then deciding how we, as a community, feel his viewpoint should best be accommodated within policy and guidelines.  On the other hand, while THF asserts all his edits have been NPOV, enough others have expressed concern at, for example, his promotion of his novel rating system for documentaries, that valid concerns clearly exist.

<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Statement by [[User:DavidShankBone|David Shankbone]] ==
=== THF ===
I am supplying evidence not to make the case that each content-oriented issue needs to be an issue, but to show there is a pattern of POV editing by THF on Wikipedia.  The argument that they were not challenged does not make them okay; it means they were not challenged (perhaps because they were okay, or because people did not notice them, people did not care, people agreed with the POV, or people did not know better).  When THF was challenged on POV edits, he either edit-warred (such as on [[Jim Hood]]) or he kept POV tags on pages while he argued relentlessly (as he told CBS News, Wikipedia rewards "persistence over accuracy").  This history was met with opposition on more frequently-edited pages, and brings us to the issue at hand: his edits on [[Sicko]] and his effort to insert OR and whether there is a COI when one is a public critic of a notable person, has defended in a lawsuit ([[Merck]]) a target of the notable person's criticism, and works for an employer who is a public critic of the notable person.  Wikipedia was never designed to be a platform for notable people who work for notable organizations to take their public battles.  It was designed as a place for the community to share information.  By inserting POV, OR and DISPUTE tags on articles, and then pushing his agenda on talk pages, he has essentially made mainspace edits on issues for which he has a COI.  If a person puts at the head of a page that there is a problem with the article and direct people to go to the Talk page where they compose diatribes that are POV on issues that they are involved with, then it becomes a mainspace edit, akin to inserting an external link to their own published work (which THF has also done).

#The MichaelMoore.com fiasco raises a question: what is an attack site and what is an "attack"?  If Moore [[:Image:Arbcom.jpg|pointing out a known public critic]] edits his articles on Wikipedia is indeed an "attack" and qualifies MichaelMoore.com as an attack site, do our internal policies and guidelines interfere with the ultimate aim of the project: to create a useful reference encyclopedia?
#What qualifies as a COI mainspace edit?  If a person with a COI raises a desire to have his work in the article on the Talk page, then there is not a problem.  If a person puts a mainspace tag at the top of a page, that directs readers to the Talk page where they  are making arguments in which they have a COI, does this qualify as a mainspace COI edit, akin to inserting an external link to their work?  In the case of THF, this has come up often, notably on [[Jim Hood]] and [[Sicko]].
#Does THF have a COI with Michael Moore that makes edits to his pages a problem?

=== David Shankbone ===
#'''I do not take issue where THF is an expert''', such as when he twice cites a blog article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants&diff=99329336&oldid=99208802 he wrote] on [[Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants]].  Nor editing articles directly related to his defense of Merck in the Vioxx lawsuit, including [[Rofecoxib]] and [[Multiple chemical sensitivity]].  Here, he is an expert and his edits are welcome.  This contrasts with his lack of expertise in film, documentaries, etc.
#'''[[Ted Frank]] vs. [[User:THF]]''' - I never rubbed THF's name in his face.  For a year he was [[User:TedFrank]], with the introduction on his User page, "My name is Ted Frank, and I work at the American Enterprise Institute."  I used his real name back when he was using it himself, just like someone calling me "David" or "David Shankbone." ''Two-thirds of the way'' through the Sicko argument he changed his User name and it took some adjusting.   If I all of sudden demanded everyone call me DSB, it wouldn't magically happen.  He also said two [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive290#Admin_intervention_needed:_User:Cyde_WP:POINT_and_WP:HARASS and_WP:STALK_violation_after_warning|other editors]] were 'wantonly' using his name---which a day later, he restored a "notable Wikipedian" template himself, saying "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Frank&diff=153756653&oldid=153756371 I have nothing to hide]".  THF wants his real name used only when...he wants it used; the rest of the time it is harassment.  That leaves the issue of his public dispute with Moore under his real name so that it became difficult to avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the room of who is, and that he inserts material he writes under his real name.  But I wasn't casting about his name like a child leaving breadcrumbs in the woods. If THF is concerned about harassment by use of his real name, then why does he go on national television and write in national publications the same things?
#Regarding my own behavior: I make no assertion I am 100% correct or that I could not have handled the situation better.  I have never encountered a situation like this before on all my time on Wikipedia and found it exhausting and I found some of the support for THF's proposals, especially in regard to his new documentary ranking, bewildering when these were clear violations of many of our policies and guidelines, as outlined above.  But I am more than happy to hear advice on how to better handle a situation such as this in the future.  I'm no saint.
#I do, however, have examples of my own good faith.  Articles I did portraits for and created when I was a newbie a year ago, [[Ben Georgia]] and [[Andrea Masley]], I initiated speedy deletes against because in hindsight these people aren't notable.  I know [[Megan McArdle]] and did her portrait, but did a "weak delete" on her AfD because her notability was marginal.  I included criticism about Michael Moore on [[reality film]].  I gave THF a barnstar, found on his User page.  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:THF&diff=154225209&oldid=154178303 offered to help] THF get a better controversy section crafted on [[Sicko]].  The only edits I made to [[Ted Frank]] were to put in two sources and correct an awkwardly-worded sentence.  I offered to do his portrait; he clearly enjoyed having his own Wikipedia article [http://tedfrank.com/ based upon his blog musings].  Even though I love [[Al Franken]] I insisted his drug use be included in his article.I congratulated someone when they replaced my [[Catwalk]] photo with a better one.  I voted to keep [[Controversies over the film Sicko]], something [[User:Noroton]] thanked me about on my Talk page.  The list goes on...
#I admit, I would be sad to see THF go, but I would definitely not be sad to see his disruptive agenda go, if he were to retire.  We can use him, but it appears THF consistently makes the argument that we must take the good with the bad.  For all the admins that threatened to block me, there is not one message to that effect on my talk page, and not one diff supplied by THF.  In fact, he supplies very few diffs.  Only links to policies and guidelines.  THF seems to be saying in his threatened retirement that if we don't let him do what he wants, he will go.  He doesn't even want his behavior examined, behavior that he thinks is so righteous.  If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will abide by any decision.  I invited two people to make statements that have dealt with THF. THF is welcome to invite all these admins and editors who have warned me to make statements.

== Statement by THF ==
I object to this arbitration request, from the title on down.

This '''is''' a user-to-user dispute, and a one-sided one: DavidShankbone has systematically harassed me over the last month--including sending off-wiki threats using the Wikipedia e-mailer that quite frankly violated United States federal law (18 USC § 875).  When I clerked, I saw people go to jail for less, but I was so motivated by the spirit of [[WP:COOL]] that I made the mistake of accepting David's insincere apology that consisted mostly of continuing to attack me for wrongdoing.  This can be resolved without RFA intervention if admins simply enforce existing policies and guidelines against [[WP:HARASS]] the same way they do when it is left-wing editors who are being harassed.

Guy's request has many factual mistakes and omissions:
*He incorrectly characterizes my [[Ted Frank|job]], which has nothing to do with Moore.
*He omits the fact that not once has COI/N found a problem with my mainspace edits, even on the two occasions I reported myself for guidance.  See, e.g., [[WP:COI/N#Sicko]].
*He omits the fact that I did not write a free-lance article about Sicko until '''after''' I had participated in the [[Sicko]] page edits for over a month (including three consecutive RFCs that agreed that Moore partisans were incorrect to revert edits that I made).
*He omits the fact that my request for information about the attacksite policy was hijacked by several other editors (including David), and that I unilaterally asked people to stop fighting about it, even as several admins continued to fight and support the idea of a delisting.  I even defended the block of an editor who edit-warred to remove references to the moore site.
*He omits the fact that after multiple admins told David to not mention me again or he would be blocked for harassment, David made '''fifteen''' edits in under 20 hours attacking me on ANI and canvassing on a user-talk page, without any admin taking action other than threatening me not to respond to the false allegations David was making against me.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guettarda&diff=next&oldid=154909166 Even now he is canvassing.]

JzG's proposal is that the fact that a blogger working for the subject of an article made an off-wiki criticism of the fact that I edited the article, I have an intractable COI.  It positively isn't the case that subjects of articles get to dictate who edits them by criticizing them off-wiki.

DavidShankbone has created massive disruption by repeatedly complaining for three weeks that I made a '''proposed edit on a talk-page''' that '''never resulted in any mainspace edits'''.  There were 54 comments in that discussion, and I made 9 of them.  David made 17 comments, another 7, two others 6 each, with the other 9 split up among several editors.  Consensus was reached against my proposed edit after an RFC that I closed on 10 August, three weeks ago.  (David accuses me of trying to put my article on 25 pages.  The "25 pages" allegation comes in response to a talk-page argument that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sicko&diff=prev&oldid=150115416 if the cite about 25 films was put on one page, why not put it on 25 pages], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASicko&diff=150116823&oldid=150115416 I agreed with that assessment].)  The talk-page content dispute resulted in a COIN complaint, and the consensus of that was that I did not violate COI by making a talk-page request, which is exactly what [[WP:COIC|WP:COI says to do]].  In the [[WT:COI#Question_for_DSB_about_application_of_proposed_guideline|aftermath, there was extensive discussion at WT:COI]], and a proposed change to the COI guideline to restrict talk-page discussion, explicitly aimed at me, was [[WT:COI#SBC.2FDSB_Proposal_.235_-_Can_we_get_consensus_for_this_addition.3F|overwhelmingly rejected]]. I closed the RFC myself on 10 August.  The only reason anyone is still discussing it is because three weeks later, David continues to forum-shop the complaint on over twelve different pages, despite not once anyone finding any wrongdoing on my part, and having failed to achieve a change in guidelines to prevent my nine talk-page comments in support of a proposed edit.  He now has the gall to complain that my actions are disruptive, when the disruption is entirely of his own creation.  (And, ironically, after spending so much effort to argue against any inclusion of my article about Moore on the grounds that the opinion wasn't notable, David, though he was in an ongoing dispute with me, edited the [[Ted Frank]] article to include it.)

I shouldn't have to defend this manufactured controversy for a twelfth time here, when the '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Controversial_experts|Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has already ruled on this issue:]]'''
*5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

::Passed 8-0

*6) The policy expressed in [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground]] by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

::Passed 8-0

#The arbitration request is effectively a [[heckler's veto]].  [[User:Cberlet]] is doing fine editing articles about subjects in which he is paid to write about his opinions and in which he has a strong point of view, in part because when people [[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive5#Indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil|repeatedly accuse him of COI without addressing content, they are blocked]].  The question is whether the same principles can also be applied to permit right-wing editors to focus on editing an encyclopedia instead of defending themselves against people violating [[WP:BATTLE]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WP:NPA]]. This was never treated as a close question before (the BabyDweezil CSN ban !vote was 11-1), and I still don't understand why it is being treated as a close question now that requires RFA intervention.  If the straightforward policies were being applied evenly, there would be no need for arbitration.
#[[WP:COI]] is also straightforward, and I haven't violated it.  Are [[User:THF/A|controversial experts welcomed at Wikipedia]], or not?  I've only "violated" a version of the COI guideline that doesn't exist, has been consistently rejected at [[WP:COI]] when people try to expand the scope of that guideline, and isn't applied against Cberlet, or WMC, or any of the multitude of other non-right-wing editors who attract people unfairly accusing them of violating COI when there isn't POV-pushing.  I'm here as a hobby.  I've been a productive editor, and I've been careful to participate in a number of Wikipedia administrative tasks, and cleaning up articles and mediating disputes like [[Andijan massacre]] and [[Richard Rossi]] where I have no interest so that there is no question of me being a SPA.  (Compare Cberlet's or WMC's edit histories to mine: {{user2|Cberlet}}; {{user2|William M. Connolley}}; {{user2|THF}}).  Am I wrong to expect that a right-wing thinktank fellow who writes about trial lawyers should be treated the same way and with the same courtesy as a left-wing [[Political Research Associates|thinktank fellow]] who writes about the Christian right (and makes 103 edits to [[Christian right]]) or the same way an opinion writer for [[Environmental Media Services]] is permitted to edit controversial articles about people he has written for EMS about?  If I am, I'm happy to leave: what attracted me to Wikipedia was NPOV, and if that core principle is just spin and there isn't any intent of enforcing rules neutrally, I don't want to be here.
#Not only is [[WP:BATTLE|Wikipedia not a battlefield]], but I don't want it to be one: if I am going to spend time writing legal briefs and compiling evidence, I want it to be on a more important subject than whether I should spend time on a hobby--I just turned down an opportunity to write a Supreme Court amicus brief on the [[dormant commerce clause]] because of other deadlines, and I'd have trouble spending time looking in the mirror if I was instead spending weeks at an Arbcom when no one in earlier dispute resolution ever identified a single mainspace diff that violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  I'm not a neo-Nazi or a Velikovskian: I have political views well within mainstream American political thought.  And if being within the American conservative mainstream means that whether I should be treated with civility is a debatable proposition that I need to [[WP:BATTLE|spend time defending]] in an arbitration, then that speaks far worse about Wikipedia than about me, and I'll get more real-life writing done instead.  If this goes forward, I retire.  I was here to edit an encyclopedia, not play David's games. [[User:THF|THF]] 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

=====Addendum in response to JzG addition=====
JzG says this arbitration is needed because of "valid concerns" over "his promotion of his novel rating system for documentaries".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASicko&diff=149963949&oldid=149959773 At 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC), I made an editing suggestion at Talk:Sicko].  Shankbone responded by trying to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sicko&diff=next&oldid=149963949 delete the comment].  After failing to censor the discussion, (and trying to GAME the discussion by bringing a [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_American_%28magazine%29|frivolous AFD against the magazine that published my piece]]) it was discussed, with Shankbone and others committing various violations of NPA and CIVIL (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sicko&diff=next&oldid=149975109]), that I was forced to respond to to correct a number of false statements Shankbone made arguing against inclusion; I made a total of nine comments in response to David's 17 comments.  After an RFC, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASicko&diff=150497487&oldid=150476481 closed the discussion myself] less than 60 hours later.  I made no mainspace edits.

While the talkpage discussion was going on, there was a full airing of the discussion at COI/N, where it was conclusively determined that the concerns were '''not''' valid, because I did precisely what WP:COI said I should do.  David, not satisfied, took it to ANI several times, took it to several talk pages, took it to VPP and to CSN, sent me threatening email through the Wikipedia emailer, was told several times to stop badgering me,(e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavidShankBone&diff=154731378&oldid=154721511] + several admins on ANI and at COIN) and yet we're still discussing '''my''' conduct.  David violated [[WP:TALK]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:HARASS]], and [[WP:STALK]], made a tendentious and retaliatory AFD, made (and continues to make) tendentious claims that citing to a published article violate NOR, is gloating about the scalp he got on his user page, is posting taunting photos of me, and no one enforced the rules.

Why is an editing suggestion over documentary rankings that lasted a couple of days on an article talk page (and had support from multiple editors) and eventually resulted in a compromise change to the text of an article made by other editors more disruptive and in need of administrative intervention than three weeks of badgering a user over that content dispute long after it was over?  Again, that Shankbone was allowed to get away with such incivility and pestering, and that anyone thinks that further harassment of me is the appropriate way to resolve this, speaks very very poorly for Wikipedia.  This isn't a close case who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

Like I did say before, Wikipedia rewards persistence over accuracy.  David has made disruptively false accusations of violating COI and disruption against me over a dozen times, when he knows perfectly well that I complied with WP:COI, since his attempt to change the rules so he could retroactively condemn me was rejected.  Admins, instead of enforcing the rules against harassment, are taking his allegations seriously after DR resolved them and after there is no content dispute.  I'm not putting up with further harassment, because even if I get judged fairly in this arbitration, others will learn from David's example that they can harass an editor and prevent them from editing by diverting them into frivolous arbitrations with impunity.  This could have been resolved two weeks ago when David first started exhibiting signs of vendetta, and it is appalling that there are admins who have encouraged it.  [[User:THF|THF]] 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

=====Addendum in response to Shankbone addition=====
I want to leave Wikipedia, yet Shankbone continues to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=155354126&oldid=155341510 harass me with new and bogus claims] that have nothing to do with any article he participated in.  His latest claim, that I added the words "wealthy trial lawyers" to the Jim Hood article, veers into libel.  (Addendum to BenB4: I am not going to sue Shankbone for on-wiki behavior, as disturbed as I am about his repeated lies about me.)  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hood&diff=115427944&oldid=114849425 I was not the one who added that language.]  The only thing I did was revert an anon SPA's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hood&diff=145450015&oldid=140996616 repeated whitewash] of the article (done without discussion by the SPA on the talkpage) and add a cite to a true claim about the relationship between Scruggs and Hood (noted by a federal district judge) that the anon objected to.  I have no relationship to Jim Hood.  COI is about self-promotion, and one can see that, although not a single talk-page participant objected to my addition of notable points of view about Hood, I did not add a cite to myself.  The anon '''actually''' had a COI: it was an '''IP from Hood's office''' who deleted criticism of Hood made by a federal judge investigating a criminal contempt that is being prosecuted now.  We can thus see how much Shankbone cares about the COI guideline and truth, and how much he cares about his vendetta against me.  I put an NPOV tag on the article so that a neutral editor could evaluate it.  If we had an NPOV/N board, I would have simply reported it, but no such board exists, so the tag is the only way to signal a problem.

Shankbone's allegations about The American and WHO and the real-name usage are similarly fictional retellings that omit facts.  Shankbone '''knows''' his accounts are misleading there, because he participated in the events and responded to my explanations.  '''This''' is the harassment more than anything Hypno complains about: having someone [[WP:STALK]] me through Wikipedia, making multiple false statements about me using my real name in multiple forums that I am forced to rebut before someone believes them and repeats them.  And because Shankbone treats stalking me as a full-time job (judging by the number of hits from 67.102.*.* on my personal website, which, while perfectly legal, is kind of creepy), and I treat Wikipedia as a hobby, I can't compete.  [[User:THF|THF]] 09:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

=====Addendum and request to arbitrators=====
I object to Shankbone's apparent intent to go through all 7000+ of my edits looking for ones he can misrepresent as bad.  Arbitration requires other methods of dispute resolution to be exhausted first, and my edits to [[Robert Bork]] and [[Jim Hood]] were uncontroversial edits that did not violate consensus.  Shankbone is taking them out of context now, and simply posting a diff and falsely claiming that the diff violated policy to force a defender to spend twenty minutes explaining the rationale for the edit is both harassment and a simple content dispute that does not belong in arbitration.  The Bork article violated NPOV and BLP: I fixed it, adding sources, adding both pro and con information,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Bork&diff=150513983&oldid=150502316] discussing some of the changes on the talk page first, and have no shame in my edits, which no established editor ever objected to before today.  (Note, as COI goes, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Bork&diff=153407638&oldid=152565016 took out on 24 August] a cite to me writing about Bork that another editor added, after first discussing it on the talk page on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Bork&diff=152471864&oldid=151745767 August 20].  The paragraph violated BLP, NPOV, and WEIGHT.  There were no objections to the edit on the talkpage or mainspace.  Note that one of Shankbone's diffs is again to the talk page: the fact that I sought consensus on an edit is something he seeks to have condemned and forces me to waste time defending.)  I do object to Shankbone continuing to lie about my edits and seeking to raise a content dispute that wasn't even a dispute to arbitration.

I've had multiple admins and arbitrators invite me to return to Wikipedia.  Yet the reason I left was the fact that the rules are being enforced unevenly, and [[User:THF/A|long-established principles about "undue focus"]] and harassment are ignored.  And the last couple of days suggests that my decision to leave was the correct one.  Now that arbs have accepted the arbitration, Shankbone is seeking to impermissibly expand the scope of the arbitration beyond what the arbitrators agreed to with additional frivolous allegations to further burden me.  And he is doing so with impunity, without anyone saying word one.

I followed the rules, and established through the consensus of an RFC that [[competition law]] violated NPOV, was factually inaccurate, and needed to be entirely rewritten.  The POV-pushing editor ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidShankBone&diff=next&oldid=155069160 working in conjunction with Shankbone] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikidea&diff=150119688&oldid=144312334]) who brought a [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Competition_law|frivolous COIN complaint against me on that article]] took [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competition_law&diff=155074665&oldid=154235593 less than 24 hours to completely undo all the tags and return the page to its policy-violative state] -- and he did so against consensus.  He continued to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATHF&diff=151878831&oldid=151871329 ludicrously uncivil] to me [[Talk:Competition_law#The_above_user|after he was warned]].  Yet '''my''' edits are being investigated and David's meat-puppet [[User:Wikidea]] hasn't even been made a party.

If we're going to expand this arbitration beyond any reasonable scope, let's look at the fact that Shankbone has made hundreds of self-promotional edits on Wikipedia, even edit-warring with editors who objected to inappropriate photos he posted.  [[WP:KETTLE]] comes to mind with his overbroad application of COI rules beyond what the rules say.  If it's inappropriate for me to '''suggest''' on a '''talk-page''' that an article I wrote be cited to, why is it appropriate for Shankbone to '''edit-war''' in '''mainspace'''?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pubic_hair&diff=152716391&oldid=152695957] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pubic_hair&diff=next&oldid=152716391]  The answer is that Shankbone doesn't care about COI: he cares about [[WP:GAME]]ing the system to harass someone he is in a content-dispute with.  And admins, instead of intervening, are aiding and abetting.

Shankbone's single-mindedness on this has extended to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Frank&diff=153872401&oldid=153838152 editing] the [[Ted Frank]] article to violate [[WP:WEIGHT]] to make it seem that a single paragraph I published criticizing Michael Moore was one of the most important things I ever wrote--even though it was published by a publication that Shankbone has repeatedly stated is not notable and even attempted to delete from Wikipedia.  No one is enforcing [[WP:POINT]], either, even though Shankbone dishonestly tricked an admin to think that my job is "to write about Michael Moore."

There are already [[User:THF/A|rules in place dealing with this]]--including rules against retaliatory edits to mainspace pages dealing with the editor with whom one is having a content dispute with.  What is there to arbitrate?  Just enforce the rules that are already there!  If people want to change the COI policy, take it to VPP and WT:COI, and get a new consensus, and I would have followed the new rules just as I followed the current ones.  The only possible reason for this arbitration is if there are going to be different rules for right-wingers than there already exist for left-wing writers in precisely identical circumstances.  Because that double-standard has been made abundantly clear, and POV-pushers now know that it is acceptable to harass right-wingers, I take my leave of Wikipedia.  [[User:THF|THF]] 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

==Preliminary decisions==
===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)===
* Accept. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
* Accept (Most of the action is at [[Sicko]] and [[Talk:Sicko]]. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
* Accept. [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
* Accept. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision =
''All numbering based on [[/Proposed decision]]'' (vote counts and comments are there as well)
===Case dismissed===
1) As one of the principal parties has discontinued his participation on Wikipedia, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken, with the understanding that the matter may be reconsidered if said party should return to active editing.

'''Passed''' on 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration cases|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]