Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:41, 29 November 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for checkuser

1) The arbcomm, in order to determine if User:Asmodeus and User:DrL are indeed skirting WP:AUTO and WP:COI, will need to determine whether Asmodeus and DrL are related to Christopher Michael Langan for the purpose of settling this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Doesn't matter exactly who they are; it is the disruptive behavior that is at issue. Fred Bauder 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Requested. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? Thatcher131 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this and this I have added DrL as a party. Disruptive behavior is a no-no no matter who the editor is in real-life. Please add evidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary ban of DrL from Langan-related articles

1) DrL was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR at 12:31 on 27 November. 1 hr and 2 minutes after the block expired DrL was back edit warring at the Christopher Michael Langan article, violating 3RR again within 8 hrs. This was DrL's 4th block now for 3RR violations at Christopher_Michael_Langan and Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: [1]

Given DrL's chronic edit warring and multiple 3RR violations, and the fact after her last block she returned and immediately violated 3RR again, a temporary ban to halt the disruption is in order, at least until this proceeding is completed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Posting of personal information

1) The posting of personal information, or speculation thereof, of a Wikipedia user is strictly prohibited, as defined by Wikipedia:Harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a firm policy. It is serious digging after the identity of anonymous users combined with posting of personal information combined with personal harassment which is the evil. Speculation regarding the identity of an anonymous user whose interests mirror a known person are only natural. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

DrL and I were subjected to vicious, protracted campaigns of harassment by users Byrgenwulf and Hillman/CH. During these campaigns, which ended only when they left Wikipedia, I learned that Wikipedia harbors certain people - militant skeptics, ID critics and so forth - who bear Christopher Michael Langan what seems to be considerable ill will for various POV-based reasons, and also that Wikipedia has few administrators willing to restrain them. Those who post allegations that I am CML are exposing me to this reservoir of ill will, and to add insult to injury, spiking it with misrepresentations and trying to tie my hands in the bargain. This is utterly reprehensible, and quite aside from the fact that my edit history requires no apologies, I strongly object to it on ethical grounds. If this is some sort of catch-22 inherent in Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia policy is unsound; on the other hand, if Wikipedia policy is sound, then properly interpreting and enforcing it should put an end to the harassment. Asmodeus 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Given [2], needs to be defined. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pot=Kettle Thatcher131 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per below, this is not "strictly prohibited" - the arbcomm has done this on several occassions, and any CheckUser case amounts to some degree of (public) speculation in this regard. Guettarda 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAR was never intended as a shield to allow editors who have a personal stake in a topic to side-step complying with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Scofflaws who attempt to use WP:HAR to game the system should not benefit from their misdeeds. Arbcomm precedent exists that affirms this. FeloniousMonk 18:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors

1) Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Speculation regarding obvious situations is not a violation. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If anyone has a right to anonymity at Wikipedia, then so does everyone, including bio subjects and the authors of notable ideas. Anything else is blatantly discriminatory. When Byrgenwulf came here from The Brights.net in order to attack the CML and CTMU articles, he proclaimed himself an expert in the philosophy of physics while making various mistakes that a real expert wouldn't have made. On the supposition that a real expert is not afraid to share his credentials, I did some minor investigation, found that Byrgenwulf was at best a grad student, and naively pointed this out (along with his name, which I included for purposes of verification). Needless to say, the sky fell on me for daring to reveal the extent of his "expert qualifications". Yet, when Hillman/CH began his outrageous "dig page" on me and DrL, including every scrap of information he could ferret and various slurs and false charges in the bargain, nobody seemed to have a problem with it but the victims (us). The double standard is palpable. Again, if this is inherent in Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia policy is unsound. The distributed architecture of Wikipedia demands symmetry above all else. Asmodeus 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From {{Pinfo4}}. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is value to anonymity, but it is definitely not a right of contributors. {{Pinfo4}}, which does not appear to be supported by either policy or guideline, directly contradicts WP:AUTO and WP:COI, and conflicts with CheckUser. See also the Agapetos angel arbcomm case. Harrassment should not be tolerated, but we make no guarantees of anonymity, and we cannot make such guarantees if we want to be able to protect ourselves. Guettarda 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding behind anonymity to circumvent policy and guideline governing self-editing and bias to enable one to promote a narrow viewpoint to the detriment of article neutrality is simply gaming the system; an act of bad faith and an abuse of policy, not a protected right. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

1) Without evidence to the contrary, all Wikipedians should assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An adequate restatement. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per "ScienceApologist has serially violated WP:NPA, WP:LIVING, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPOV while falsely accusing me of violating WP:AUTO (as loyally seconded by some of his allies)" -- Asmodeus. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliations and views

1) All Wikipedians are expected to abide by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This includes that using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views should be discouraged and/or prevented, regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Awkwardly expressed but true. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is called home by a certain number of militants, including its own self-appointed anti-ID and anti-pseudoscience "strike teams". In the current political and educational climate, wherein ID is systematically conflated with creationism, calling someone an "ID advocate" is enough to annihilate his or her credibility with a large percentage of the educated populace. In point of impact, one might compare it to crying "witch!" against an eccentric 17th century Salem spinster. ID critics and militant skeptics are very well aware of this. By falsely but tirelessly identifying CML as an "ID advocate" while repeatedly removing references to valid sources like Popular Science (e.g., 1), ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and their comrades-in-arms are trying to make him, and by proxy me, a focus of contempt. Of course, the proper focus of contempt is exactly this kind of behavior. Asmodeus 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flies in the face of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and not attempt to mislead the community in order to avoid having to comply WP:COI and WP:AUTO. FeloniousMonk 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would dislike this for reasons related to what FM said. Involved editors edits should not be dismissed a priori. However, when involved editors have shown repeated tendencies to POV push or be otherwise disruptive it is highly understandable if editors react in a dismissive fashion to their later edits. JoshuaZ 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographical writing

1) Although discouraged in certain circumstances (see WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV), editing articles which are autobiographical in nature are not prohibited. Known or speculated autobiographical edits cannot be reverted on the grounds of being simply autobiographical in nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not prohibited, but subject to revision and in extreme cases to reversion or deletion. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I see that I'm accused below of editing the Langan biography. As DrL observes, I did so just twice: once to correct a misspelling, and once because ScienceApologist had sneakily added the following false statement: "Langan is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, an intelligent design society founded by Jonathan Wells." Because there is no evidence that Langan knows Wells or vice versa, Wells does not belong in Langan's biography any more than Langan belongs in Wells'. After all, ScienceApologist was merely attempting to associate Langan with a man who is widely (and probably unjustly) criticized for being both an ID advocate and a follower of the Rev Sun Myung Moon - in short, a "Moonie" - and who thus suffers from a double PR whammy for which he has paid a steep price. Granted, it's a game that people like ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk delight in playing, but why should they be allowed to play it at Langan's expense? (Incidentally, ScienceApologist's statement is false because Wells is not among the founders of ISCID at all, as one can easily see by reading this article.)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there is no solid prohibition, it is discouraged in general, not just "in certain circumstances". Several arbcomm rulings (e.g., the Carl_Hewitt, WebEx/Min Zhu and Agapetos angel cases) have supported this idea. Guettarda 05:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though the principle is sound, WP:AUTO exists to discourage self-editing and specifically mentions why it is inappropriate "[there are]...several fundamental problems with autobiographies:They are often biased, usually positively (see puffery). People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts." and urges editors to refrain from writing about themselves "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself." Much arbcomm precedent exists to this effect. And puffery and self-aggrandizement were exactly the issues with Asmodeus' edits that drew ScienceApologist's attention and continue to this day at Uncommon Dissent as I write this: [3][4][5][6] FeloniousMonk 19:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This statement by Felonious Monk gives the impression that Asmodeus has edited the Langan bio and he has not. The one or two edits that he's made only corrected a typo or two. This is typical of the presentation of FM's complaints. I hope that whoever is reading FM's statements is also reading the edits and seeing just what is going on here. --DrL 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gives that impression? How so? Guettarda 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this edit is an attempt to whitewash the ID connection from the article. That's far more than a typo, it's clearly POV-pushing. Guettarda 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a world where attempts to game the system were always successful, the claim that the topics Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Uncommon Dissent and Academic elitism fail to find a nexus with Asmodeus would make sense I suppose. FeloniousMonk 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems relevant. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment (intent)

1) Posting an editors personal details with the intent or effect of harassing or threatening is strictly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Posting of an editor's personal details is prohibited. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Alternative to other harassment options. The intent/effect of personal details is key, not the mere posting of them, much like vandalism/testing. JBKramer 07:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fred, if I were to comment that on Thursday, January 6, 2000, editor William Michael Connolley was at tlc's talk on solar-climate connections, I would be in violation of some rule? He was, you know. JBKramer 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an indefinite block is in order. I am referring to more intimate matters especially with respect to editors who use a pseudoname. People who edit under their own name have different expectations. Fred Bauder 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree - it's whether there is (or appears to be) intent to harrass that matters most. Guettarda 07:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, like this one better compared to my one per above statements. Cheers for this. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment (damage)

1) Causing or threatening to cause damage to an editors reputation, livelyhood or well-being, regardless of intent, is strictly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As an alternative to above? Honestly confused on the line/judgement here. JBKramer 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Good faith participation and compliance with WP:COI and WP:AUTO

1) Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and comply with WP:COI and WP:AUTO, which require limiting their participation to the talk page when their edits are challenged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Discretion is recommended. Easy to make a fool of yourself. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Despite having done my best to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI since I came to Wikipedia, and at the risk of belaboring the obvious, I should observe that there are certain editors with whom it does little good to plead for accuracy on an article's talk page: militant or compulsive editors who don't listen particularly well, are perfectly content to leave you bound and gagged on the talk page while using their greater latitude to edit as they please, and then accuse you of violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI anyway. (Since I speak from long personal experience, including recent experience with certain parties involved in this RfAr, I trust that I'm not violating WP:AGF.) Asmodeus 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith participation when there are conflicts of interest

1) Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and not attempt to mislead the community as to their stake in the topic in order to avoid having to comply WP:COI and WP:AUTO.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existing bias towards obscure academic theories

1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias says that Wikipedia has a bias towards "obscure academic theories and subcultures with few adherents" that should be counterbalanced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Can't find that quote, but probably true in some cases. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Added; I'd count CTMU for this as an obscure academic theory.--Prosfilaes 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not sure that I agree with it, but the quote is there in the essay, see section 1.1, 4th bullet point. Newyorkbrad 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge

1) Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable established knowledge found in reliable sources. Unpublished or self-published information is generally unsuitable for inclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ban for disruption

2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles may be banned from that area, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Autobiography and Conflict of Interest

3) A user who apparently disrupts editing of the article on themselves and their areas of interest may be restricted in their editing. It is not necessary that a definite identification be made; only that the user engages in such a pattern of editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's a strong principle - is it really permissible to restrict someone on WP:AUTO grounds if you're not sure if they're the person in question? My instinct is that it would be better to proceed under the tendentious editor provisions - otherwise most tendentious editors might be subject to restriction under the theory that their "pattern" of editing raises a strong inference of conflict of interest. TheronJ 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is conflict of interest which is quite personal as in this case and conflict of interest which is much more abstract, as in articles which excite nationalist feelings. Trying to identify the person, and encouraging efforts to do so, is a violation of our users' privacy. Fred Bauder 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment (Posting of personal information) was never intended to provide a shield that allows personally involved editors to game the system and avoid having to follow WP:COI and WP:AUTO by coyly dodging requests for them to clarify their relationship to a topic (without revealing their identity, a simple "yes/no, I am/am not involved" would do) and thumb their noses at the community. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not just limited to biographies though. An editor personally involved in a topic may (wisely) avoid self-editing at his biography, but run rampant with biased edits at the article of professional organization he belongs to while not disclosing his relationship to the topic. The problem here is no different than that paid editors contributing to articles, and the net effect is the same. Editors are expected to act in good faith to clarify whether they a conflict of interest when queried. Dodging the question by refusing to clarify in order to avoid complying with guidelines is by necessity an act of bad faith. Clearly biased editing on any topic you're closely related to, like the article of your employer, is a clear conflict of interest. WP:COI and WP:AUTO exist for this very reason. 99% of us follow them, those who try to side-step them should not be rewarded. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is not unlimited

1) While the assumption of good faith is important, it is explicitly not limitless. It is permissible, in the face of the obvious, to call a spade a spade.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Feel free to cut this but it seem to me that if we are going (rightly) to mention AGF, we should also note that an editor may, through their actions, forfeit that right. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

1) Information which has not been published in a reliable source may not be included, see Wikipedia:No original research. It is not acceptable whether the user attempting to insert original research is the author or a third party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Legal threats

1) Legal threats are prohibited

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No legal threats. JBKramer 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrative conflicts of interest

1) Administrators who take strong positions on content issues, whether on Wikipedia or in real life (e.g. Bucketsofg's opposition to certain Canadian politicians, FeloniousMonk's opposition to Intelligent Design and membership in WikiProject intelligent design) should not take administrative action regarding editors or articles closely associated with the topic, even if they have not previously edited the article or interacted with the editor (and might consider themselves technically "uninvolved"). I guess this was a stupid idea. Thatcher131 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposed desyopping in this case is based on unblocking a serious problem user on the basis that he was "doing just fine". It has nothing to do with the meta theme of opposing intelligent design. Fred Bauder 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prop. Thatcher131 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this could catch a number of other admins (e.g. MONGO) who have strong opinions about content. Hopefully they have already learned to refrain from takin admin action themselves in relation to topics they care deeply about. Thatcher131 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this is a good idea, but doesn't obviously follow from current policy. Assuming I'm correct, (1) should this go through the normal policy process rather than arbcomm; or (2) if it goes through arbcomm, should it be prospective only? It's also tricky to define "strong positions." TheronJ 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what Theron says in so far as that this is arguably beyond the ArbCom's level of discretion. (Throw in some joke about an activist arbcom here). I'm also not sure this is a good idea. While admins should be careful when excercising their tools on topics they have opinions about, this would hamper many admins from being able to do their duties effectively and would give POV pushers an excuse to accuse admins who block them of violating this. For example, if we had an editor who insisted adding to the Jesus article the phrase "The Jews killed Jesus" I don't think we would need to search for an admin who didn't have a strong opinion about whether or not the statement was true in order to do a 3RR block. I think I am probably one of the admins who might be considered to have a strong POV on ID matters and I've blocked editors on both sides of the fence for POV pushing and incivility on related articles. I for one (and I suspect many other admins) would like that freedom. The bottom line is that when making people admins the community is saying that it trusts them to decide when they are too involved or too biased to make a block. Micromanaging their judgement calls will cause more problems than it would solve. JoshuaZ 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject:ID, I would like to know which of my administrative actions related to are egregious enough that they warrant restrictions of my use of admin powers in relation to topics like these. (Or should I now be posting as a party?) Guettarda 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. As long as you take a good look at the edited of a blocked user before you unblock them, I can't see a problem. Vandals are not divided into "good" vandals who agree with you and "bad" vandals who don't. Fred Bauder 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I thought this was a logical extension of the principle that admins should not block editors with whom they are involved in editing disputes. Obviously yet another good reason I am not running for Arbcom. And maybe this is unnecessary anyway as admins who are passionate about a topic will probably be writing about it anyway. I was trying to identify a reason why desysopping FM for unblocking the Fisher accounts might be justified. Even if we accept the characterization of the Fisher accounts as single purpose attack accounts, what elevates the unblock from an ordinary error in judgement to a desysopping offense? Does the fact that FM has heavily edited the CML article create enough "involvement" that he should not have unblocked the Fishers, or is a broader principle needed? (Hypothetically, if a new editor joined and created a new 9/11 conspiracy article, do you think MONGO should speedy-delete it or would it be better if someone else did it?) Thatcher131 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, per Fred, this is going in a direction other than what I thought. Never mind. Thatcher131 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What elevates the unblock? Nothing, Fred's suggestion is flawed. But the correct response to a flawed proposal is to either point out the flaw, or ignore it and let it die a natural death. Responding with a proposed principle which says "let's censure people on the basis of their beliefs is about as bad an idea as I can imagine. Guettarda 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what reasons are proposed to desysop in this case are irrelevant: the proposal is out of process. Period. Jim62sch 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of form, references to other administrators or editors uninvolved in the present case are fine in argumentation or by way of comparison, but I do not believe they should appear in the decision itself. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

1) Enthusiastic but inexperienced users frequently commit gaffes such as intensively editing subjects they are involved with such as the article on themselves or their own research. However, if patiently corrected, many go on to become valued contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All too true. Patience is justified with such editors and their totally expected and excusable gaffs, but not for coordinated campaigns as is the case here. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder if we have statistics on that. Jim62sch 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative status

1) Administrators who misuse their tools by engaging in struggle with other users may be desysopped. As applied to this case, unblocking a single purpose attack account was grossly inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More grossly inappropriate than the painfully obvious wrongful block and abuse of admin tools in which that editor was summarily indefinitely blocked without warning and without any appropriate community discussion or input? I don't think so. Particularly considering evidence shows that Asmodeus and DrL have a long and well-established history of attacking and harassing those who oppose them to the degree that some have left the project, making single purpose accounts appear a reasonable method of self-preservation for anyone who wants to stand up against their campaign of self promotion. The unilateral blocking of Haldane Fisher by Cowman109 at the behest of Asmodeus and DrL, done completely outside of process, proves my point. FeloniousMonk 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, Asmodeus did not ask me to block Haldane Fisher, I did it based on my own judgement without having even spoken to Asmodeus or any other parties in this case, seeing that the user's edits appeared to be blatant harassment of a single purpose account. When Asmodeus asked me to block the sockpuppet of Haldane Fisher, I instead resorted to speaking with the user instead of blocking. It may be a good idea to somehow add FeloniousMonk and me to the involved parties to this case if this becomes a part of the findings of fact, however. Cowman109^Talk 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have given Haldane Fisher a warning first and given him an opportunity to correct or justify his actions, which were not wholly inappropriate or unexpected. And failing there then a proposed block of Haldane Fisher should be been brought up at WP:AN/I. This would have been consistent with WP:BLOCK and established convention. Unilateral, summary blocks are almost anyways controversial, and those made without community input are almost always wrong. I'm not alone in this opinion. FeloniousMonk 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exceptions would be vandalism only accounts which are regularly blocked, but that's just me wikilawyering :). The second account I did not block immediately and I tried to start a discussion, however, since it was clear the user will use different IPs and sockpuppets to continue his disruptive action. Cowman109^Talk 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clasrify the last sentence -- it seems a bit unclear as if something is missing Jim62sch 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there was contact from DrL to Cowman [7] before any action was taken [8]. Jim62sch 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user wasn't a single purpose account, I figured they would make an unblock request on their talk page, as the MediaWiki blocked text instructs them to do. This was not done, however, and instead the user went on to create a new account to continue their disruptive action. As to the contact from DrL to me, as I've stated above, this was in reference to the second single purpose account whom I did not block, and instead resorted to discussion. Cowman109^Talk 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack accounts

1) Accounts created and used only for the purpose of attacking the subject of an article and their work may be indefinitely banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I concur. I should also note that after being repeatedly exposed to the unpleasant activities of Hal(dane) Fisher, I take serious exception to the claim (below) that I'm responsible for FeloniousMonk's decision to officially sponsor him. In point of fact, I've been far too busy trying to defend myself from accusations that I engaged in a "campaign of self-promotion" to actually engage in the campaign of self-promotion which allegedly brough Haldane Fisher into existence. (By the way, I hope nobody misinterprets FeloniousMonk's portentious references to "the evidence" as proof that "the evidence" implies what he says it implies. It seems to me that he simply links to every edit made by DrL or me, labels it "evidence", and randomly inserts it under the accusatory heading of his choice.) Asmodeus 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't care for SPAs myself, but Asmodeus' and DrL's own actions resulted in the appearence of SPAs. Evidence shows that both Asmodeus, here and DrL and here, have a long and well-established history of attacking and harassing those who oppose them to the degree that some have left the project. They've created a climate that makes single purpose accounts appear a reasonable method of self-preservation for anyone who wants to stand up against their campaign of self promotion. The unilateral blocking of Haldane Fisher by Cowman109 at the behest of Asmodeus and DrL, done completely outside of process, proves my point. FeloniousMonk 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the blocking of Haldane Fisher above. Cowman109^Talk 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Jim62sch 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) (Proposed principle)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) (Proposed principle)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) (Proposed principle)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

ScienceApologist

1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is a prolific Wikipedia editor, with over 12,000 edits and two years of service.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Gives background to those involved. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

1) Asmodeus (talk · contribs) had a request for comment filed against him/her (see here), with concerns about WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVILITY.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone can file a RFC against anyone if they get a few people to agree with them. That a RFC was filed is not really all that relevant. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, gives some background. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus request. Filers never followed through. --DrL 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus is an aggressive and tendentious editor

3) Many of Asmodeus' edits are tendentious and with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. [9], [10]). He also introduces special pleading in support of fringe subjects (e.g. [11]). The degree of disruption he has caused is surprising given his limited mainspace edit history [12].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus is uncivil

4) Many of Asmodeus' talk page comments and edit summaries are uncivil, attacking those attempting to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus' editing style

1) Asmodeus' editing style of Langan-related articles is characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits promoting/inflating Langan's viewpoints over those of mainstream science: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39][40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourtesy by Asmodeus

1) Asmodeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discourteous [50] [51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research by Asmodeus

2) Asmodeus has engaged in original research [52] [53].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Asmodeus area of editing

1) Asmodeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in his editing concentrated on the set of subjects associated with Christopher Michael Langan, an independent scholar noted for original research. In this context "original research" means advancement of original ideas outside traditional academic venues such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FeloniousMonk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DrL

1) DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits articles related to Christopher Michael Langan in a disruptive way Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#DrL_ignores_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:NOT.2C_WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not edit in a disruptive way. I stick to verifiable facts and encourage others not to post opinion and conjecture or misrepresent sources. --DrL 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hal Fisher

1) Hal Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [54] Haldane Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [55] are accounts which are mainly devoted to opposition to Christopher Michael Langan and Asmodeus who they identify as being him, often posting comments to that effect. example of a nasty edit

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk

1) Haldane Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been blocked for harassing Asmodeus by Cowman109 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [56]. When Hal Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on November 27 and engaged in the same activity he was warned by Cowman109 [57]. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) responded to this warning with a post characterizing Cowman109's warning as harassment [58], stating, "Hal is doing just fine as far as I have seen." He then unblocked Haldane Fisher [59].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

He was blocked for "revealing personal information", something which, as has been demonstrated here, was neither a "revelation", nor was it something that Asmodeus has made a real attempt to hide. Based on this case, its obvious that the rationale for the block was in error. While Hal[dane] Fisher has obviously contempt for Langan, and a case could probably be made for restricting his edits to that article, I don't see that a clear case was made for a ban (e.g., a posting to AN/I). With no case made for a community block, I fail to see how FM's unblock is a major issue. Guettarda 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My unblocking of Haldane Fisher was meant to remedy what in my view was an painfully obvious wrongful block and abuse of admin tools. User:Cowman109 indefinitely blocked User:Haldane Fisher without any prior warning or community discussion: [60][61][62] Haldane Fisher was simply repeating the same quite valid point raised by User:Hillman, ScienceApologist and many others: that Asmodeus and DrL are serially violating WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:NOT to conduct a pov campaign of self-promotion on the project. And his method was not unreasonable or trollish, [63][64], and remained quite reasonable until he was repeatedly attacked by Asmodeus and DrL and summarily blocked by Cowman109. And considering the treatment he received for his effort I feel his response has been understandable. Summary, unilateral blocks without warning for adding Notable Wikipedian tags to articles or noting in edit summaries that an editor is obviously involved with the topic and violating policy are not supported by policy; there is nothing in WP:BLOCK that would indicate that Cowman109's block of Haldane Fisher was anything but a wrongful block. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApoligist's suspicions

1) On November 9, 2006 ScienceApologist began to suspect that Asmodeus was Christopher Michael Langan. He posted to Wikipedia talk:Autobiography requesting advice [65] and left a polite note on User talk:Asmodeus [66]]. When Asmodeus responded aggressively [67] [68], he voiced his suspicions in an aggressive way [69].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SA's comment re Asmodeus' identity is undoubtedly assertive, but aggressive? He does at least give reasoning to support the claim. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Guy. SA essentially verbalised what others believe to be true. Jim62sch 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential

1) If Asmodeus is Christopher Michael Langan, or associated with him, he and his associates are potentially valuable contributors, provided they chose to adopt the practices of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't follow this point. Langan's theory CTMU was removed from Wikipedia, and the best argument for keeping it was that it had been published elsewhere, not that it made sense. Asmodeus is by far the most aggressive - is it OK to say obnoxious? - editor I have found in science articles, and I don't see how identifying him with someone Wikipedia has already discredited, is a sign of future potential. I would think the first priority would be to stop him from driving out any more editors. Art LaPella 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productive contributions would depend on abandoning the notion that brilliant original research is appropriate. Fred Bauder 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: