Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:40, 6 October 2006

[[:|WP:RFAR, WP:RFARB, WP:ArbReq]]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience	none	(orig. case)	9 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

Arbitration policy
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
Developer help needed
Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:GreekWarrior vs. Wikipedia

Initiated by GreekWarrior at --GreekWarrior 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

GreekWarrior.
TonySidaway.
And others.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by {GreekWarrior}

I am a proud Greek, yes it is true I do not believe the Srebrenica Massacre occurred, and I *do* believe that eventually there will be a final showdown between Greece and Turkey and I will be proud to fight for Greece against them. But this is besides the point, I have made many good articles, Tony Sidaway can show you these, even he knows about them. But..... I am asking that I a) be unbanned or b) have my sentence of indefinate ban commuted to a ban of a set time period. I believe my devotion to Byzantine topics is at least something that should be taken into account.

Statement by {TonySidaway}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

// END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // -->

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie

Initiated by MariusM at 08:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information on article talk page [1]

Information on involved party talk page [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

- long discussions in article talk page [3]

- Request for Mediation which remained unsigned for agreement by User:William Mauco after 7 days [4]

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by {MariusM}

User:William Mauco is making propaganda for Transnistria's (Pridnestrovie) separatist regime here in Wikipedia (not only at this article, but in many others). At Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie article he claims that the majority of Moldavians living in Pridnestrovie (Russian name for Transnistria) support the independence of this unrecognized country, which I consider is not true.--MariusM 08:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

CSDCSO vs GST2006

Initiated by *Miquelon at 05:48, October 4th 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice published on talk page of article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conseil_scolaire_de_district_du_Centre-Sud-Ouest

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by Miquelon

One user, names GST2006, has hijacked a profile page about a French Language School Board in Ontario Canada CSDCSO with so-called controversies that amount to little more than Freedom of Information Request decisions, rumours, claims of nepotism, slander and baseless claims of corruption. As well, user GST2006 has injected a lot of political issues about language rights that are beyond the scope of a School Board Profile Page in a veiled attempt at justifying the section called "Controversies". The only proposed citations and links are to fringe groups that do not address the School Board in question. It is more than clear that user GST2006 has a personal and deep grudge against this School Board.

Statement by Stéphane Charette

Arbitration no longer necessary. User GST2006 has been banned for evading a previous community ban received as user WikiWoo. Additional details including link to checkuser and community ban discussion available from User talk:GST2006. --Stéphane Charette 05:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism

Initiated by Iantresman at 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously User:Joshuaschroeder [5]
FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ragesoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shell_Kinney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jim_Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gleng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JBKramer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pathological skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notes have been left on User talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

With ScienceApologist:

Statement by iantresman

A small number of editors appear to be excluding or misrepresenting some minority scientific views, with a variety of techniques that I think are best described in the article on pseudoscepticism (a false skepticism). This results in (a) some scientific articles giving exclusive coverage of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV), as if it were the only view, while policy notes that the scientific POV should give way to the broader neutral POV, (b) Articles on some minority scientific views being over-critical.

I offer two articles as examples, in summary. If the case is accepted, there are many more examples available, and I hope to get a number of areas of policy clarified.

Example 1

1. The article Eric Lerner is about the plasma physicist,[6][7], science writer [e.g. [8]], and peer reviewed author [9] (all verifiable).

While some of his work is indeed controversial, a number of editors are of the opinion that Lerner or his work (e.g. plasma cosmology) are pseudoscience [10] [11] [12] [13] (or worse [14]). I have requested a verifiable source supporting this position [15], but without success.

I believe that the following editing examples are based on the unsubstantiated perception of pseudoscience, resulting in pseudoscepticism and deviation from Wiki policy:

Removal of Lerner's verifiable label as a "plasma cosmologist" [16] or "physicist"[17], apparently because it does not meet certain editor's unverifiable criteria for these terms.
Removal of Lerner's writing awards [18]
Discrediting his "theories" by calling them "ideas" [19]
Removing positive reviews, and replacing them with negative ones [20], or including negative reviews [21] based on unreliable sources [22]
Changing Lerner's verifiable BA in Physics [23] to the suggestion that it's "self-stated"[24]
Removal of Lerner's scientific presentation [25]

Based on those edits from ScienceApologist and some of his others edits in other articles, I made a Personal Attack report [26] which subsequently results in a heated discussion [27].

Example 2

2. The article on Redshift is written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view. But like some other mainstream articles, it nearly totally excludes some minority scientific views, to a point I consider pseudosceptical, and consequently contravene policy.

For example, alternative redshift theories are extensively described in peer reviewed literatures. For example, in 1981, H. J. Reboul summarised over 500 papers on the subject [28]. Many other papers have appeared since then [29] [30] [31], and several hundred scientists have questioned the traditional view of redshift [32]

Typical edits which demonstrate the issue are as follows:

Regarding the Wolf effect (a type of redshift mechanism), denial that it is a "proper" redshift [33], or suggestion that it is not generally recognised as a redshift [34], even though it is well accepted in the field of optics [35] where the original paper on the subject has over 100 citations, and verifiable citations call it a "new redshift mechanism".
Removal of mention of alternative redshift theories,[36] including "See also" links [37], despite them being related subjects.
More accusations against scientists who research alternative theories [38]

FeloniousMonk

In addition to editor ScienceApologist, I've also singled out Administrator FeloniousMonk who I believe is acting in an uncivil manner at best. For example, while trying to clarify NPOV, he unilaterally and without warning, removed my discussion to my talk page, preventing other editors from commenting [39]. And while I don't mind being described as a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher"[40][41], I feel it is uncivil to not provide an explanation on request [42], and an abuse of administrator priviliges to react in such a heavy-handed manner [43] when a "simple content dispute" this is not. Again, I think the reaction is an example of pseudoscepticism.

Question to FeloniousMonk: Could you provide (a) A couple of examples (eg. diffs) illustrating your statement, together with (b) A couple of reliable sources suggesting pseudoscience. --Iantresman 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question to ScienceApologist: Since you note that "the scientific community defers to its expert members for evaluation of controversy"[44], and another editor suggest that "[Eric] Lerner .. is likley not 'an expert in physics.' .. He does [not] have 'a doctoral degree.'"[45], perhaps you will provide verification of your statement that you are an expert, for example, your description as "a professor of physics" [46], and confirm your doctorate? --Iantresman 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Guettarda: I ask you the same question as I asked to FeloniousMonk above. It should be quite easy to demonstrate your point with several examples, which would help myself and the Administrators. --Iantresman 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

There is conflict between editors who champion pseudoscience, fringe science, etc. like User:Iantresman and the contributions of editors who are familiar and may be considered "mainstream experts" in the material, like myself. I am a fan of the WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:RS policies/guidelines for determining the tone, tenor, and content of articles. Knowing, for example, that the vast majority of subject-specific literature ignores much of what Ian Tresman would like to see included on certain articles about mainstream subjects is exactly why I demand exclusion or marginalization (in terms of amount of text) of certain points as per the policies and guidelines described. Likewise, on the pages that are devoted to these nonmainstream ideas, it is important to verifiably, reliably, and accurately indicate that the subjects are non-mainstream, derided, and ignored. This puts a bee in Ian's bonnet because ideally he would like to see mainstream pages describe more non-mainstream arguments or he would like to see non-mainstream pages free of mainstream criticism. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeloniousMonk

I have little to contribute to this RFAR other than to urge the arbitration committee to have a long look at the contributions and actions of it's bringer, User:Iantresman. As a chronic promoter of pro-pseudoscience bias in articles, Iantresman has consistently disrupted pseudoscience article talk pages dismissing WP:NPOV, and has a history of tendentious and disruptive arguments at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, where he's sought to weaken Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to favor his bias. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elerner

SA uses the term “marginalized” to blur together very different categories. In SA’s mind, as is clear from his edits and comments both on my “Eric Lerner” page and on many others, “controversial” in science is the same as “discredited pseudoscience.” In his view, anyone with a viewpoint that is in the minority in a field is not only wrong, but not even a scientist.

I hope that I don’t have to convince the arbitrators that this is an attitude that is completely inimical to the scientific enterprise. While many minority viewpoints in science eventually die away, it is equally obvious that almost everything that science has eventually verified was once a minority viewpoint. The most obvious example is the theory of continental drift. Almost everything that geologists thought 60 years ago about geological processes was wrong, because the drift theory was a minority viewpoint for 30 years. The drift theory was for a long while very non-mainstream. But it was not pseudo- science. And, it was right.

No one would doubt that my work in cosmology is controversial. But it would be entirely inaccurate to claim, as SA does, that it is either ignored in the astronomical community or treated as outside the realm of scientific debate.

Pseudoscience is something very different—it is untestable and unverifiable claims that make no reference to the existing body of science. My work is testable and is in the context of plasma physics, a laboratory-verified body of science that is the basis of much of today’s technology.

SA’s edits of my page have systematically aimed to create the false impression that no one in the community takes my work seriously, that I should be grouped with someone like ,say, Velikovsky. For that reason he has eliminated references to my peer-reviewed publications, to leading academic institutions where I have been invited to present my work and to my stay at ESO as a Visiting Astronomer.

That is why it is entirely appropriate to put back in the paragraph about where I have published and spoken and the coverage of my work in leading popular since magazines like New Scientist and Sky and Telescope. As Art Carlson says, such information allows the reader to judge how my view are regarded and to make distinctions between “controversial” and “kooky”, distinctions that SA denies exist.

SA and his colleague BKramer have pursued this campaign against me and everyone else they see as minority thinkers. This has led to ludicrous stunts such as questioning my (BA!) degree from Columbia as “unsourced”. I would like to see anyone’s degree which is publicly sourced to anyone except themselves. University records are not generally on-line!

I think both SA and BKramer should be blocked from my page and from the many other pages that they have defaced with their rampages by confusing minority viewpoints with pseudoscience. And by the way, there is no sourced evidence that SA is any sort of “expert” as he claims to be.

Statement by Ragesoss

I'm not sure how "involved" I can be considered, but I have observed and occasionally argued against some of the (in my opinion overzealous) anti-pseudoscience efforts of ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and others. I am particularly concerned about the abuse of the "Undue Weight" clause of NPOV policy to overly limit, and in many cases remove altogether, material about non-mainstream or pseudoscientific ideas. Especially in articles about these ideas, the appropriate application of Undue Weight should not invoke the implicit rejection of these ideas by the mainstream scientific community as proof of "tiny minority" status (and thus removal of information); weighting should be based on the verifiable views of those who have discussed such ideas directly. Statements to the effect of "this idea violates such-and-such" or "this is widely considered pseudoscience" (along with specific verifiable critiques by outside sources) should provide all the warning readers need (although providing verifiable information about ideological or political motivations, etc., is often helpful as well). NPOV policy requires that we try to describe opposing viewpoints in ways that supporters of those viewpoints would consider accurate.

As for the related mainstream topics (for example, Redshift vis-a-vis Redshift quantization), I think the policy of removing any mention of non-mainstream ideas is a distortion of the intent of Undue Weight as well. If a non-mainstream or pseudoscience idea is notable enough to have an article, it should be common sense that, at the least, it can be linked as a "see also" from the narrowest-scope mainstream article related to it. So while Redshift quantization should be excluded from Cosmology and Big Bang , it serves readers well to provide a link from Redshift even if Redshift quantization is generally considered pseudoscience (which Iantresman contests and I am not qualified to judge). And often, a more appropriate approach is to include a sentence or two to contextualize the topic as an small minority view or a concept generally recognized as pseudoscience. In this sense, it may be that more (words) is actually less (emphasis).

Bracketing notable non-mainstream ideas into walled gardens makes Wikipedia worse.--ragesoss 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-mainstream or pseudoscience idea is notable enough to have an article, it should be common sense that, at the least, it can be linked as a "see also" from the narrowest-scope mainstream article related to it. -- I absolutely disagree. Does Time have Time cube listed in the see also section? The two-stream approach to editting proposes advocated by User:Ragesoss, that articles about major subjects should be linked to all minor subjects is an unreasonable expectation. The one-stream approach is much more reasonable where articles are linked to as the actual content of the article warrants. This means that general subjects will not necessarily link to every minor article that claims influence on the general subject but, obviously, minor articles will link to the general subject. --ScienceApologist 20:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued before, I don't think Time Cube qualifies as notable non-mainstream science or pseudoscience; it is pseudoscience, but its notability derives from its popularity as an internet meme, and thus it is rightly excluded from Time (and probably should be removed from Theory of everything as well).--ragesoss 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you determining notability? --ScienceApologist 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell_Kinney

I haven't been much of an involved party in this save the incident on WP:PAIN, but I'll be happy to give my input. During my review of the history of Eric Lerner and its associated talk page edits, I found that ScienceApologist, in his good-faith attempt to keep minority science or pseudo science articles from becoming promotion pieces, tended to strictly enforce certain Wikipedia policies while marginalizing others to further his goal. SA tends to assert ownership of an article until he is satisfied with its state and will accuse others of doing so should they revert his changes. He tends to push mainstream POV to extremes, strictly adhering the Undue Weight clause - unfortunately sometimes this goes so far as removal of well-sourced positive comments he doesn't agree with or "knows" is wrong or the inclusion of negative material without any source or with poor sources. He sometimes uses original research to modify articles into his vision of NPOV and may not be able to provide sources showing that his view is mainstream or provide them to support his content changes. He tends to revert to his preferred version rather than discuss and resolve editing conflicts and can often be incivil during attempted discussions. He tends to discard the notion that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Essentially, its a good cause gone awry - it is completely acceptable to keep minor topics on Wikipedia from legitimizing or inflating themselves simply by virtue of appearing here - it is less acceptable to discard Wikipedia's principles in order to do so. Shell ^babelfish 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to respond to Guettarda's most recent allegations. First, let me point out that his summary is a gross misrepresentation of the incident - the article was in ScienceApologist's preferred version when he was blocked; I later restored this version of the article when Elerner used the block as an opportunity to abort the discussion process and revert to his alternate version. The block was an attempt to halt a long standing edit war and over concerns that Wikipedia policies, including those surrounding the biographies of living persons, were being violated.

After the block and its subsequent reversal, Guettarda engaged me in discussion which included similar unfounded allegations and other attacks on my integrity. When asked to support his allegations of bias and characterizations of my editing, he failed to provide any such evidence. Since my editing falls into one of three categories - cleanup, my biology and computer science interests and OTRS actions - he'll be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with his assumptions. It is knee-jerk reactions like these that make the pseudo/mainstream science debate a conflict instead of the collaboration it should be.

That said, I'm convinced a block was not the best way to resolve the edit war and have no concerns about its quick reversal. I was and am still disturbed by FeloniousMonk, Guettarda and others in their circle excusing ScienceApologist's actions and their claims that an editor's body of good work should exempt them from any sanctions.

I would also like to congratulate the editors who cleaned up the Myron Evans article as Pjacobi pointed out. Its an excellent example of the ability to maintain a biographical article's focus and follow Wikipedia policy while clearly and unequivocally stating that the subject's theories are not accepted by mainstream science. Shell ^babelfish 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim_Butler

I agree with Gleng's comments. As he says below and elsewhere, the term "pseudoscience" isn't found much in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Accordingly, to the extent that we use the term, we should be clear about whose POV we're representing, and with which V RS's.

Editors concerned with highlighting what they believe are pseudoscientific topics rightly point to the NPOV FAQ's comments on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions. However, NPOV and VER go further than those passages, and if we rely too heavily on those passages at the expense of other aspects of NPOV and VER, we're missing the forest for the trees. For example, if WP:NPOVT#Categorisation means anything, it means that category:pseudoscience should be used sparingly. I've commented on this issue in some detail here. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (minor edits for clarity 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gleng

I was asked to offer an opinion because I have expressed the view that, if you believe that one interpretation of the facts is true, then it is in your best interests to show the case ‘’for the opposite position’’ as strongly, clearly, and honestly as possible from available V RS, as well as the case for your own position. [47]. I do not think that every dissenting opinion should be treated in this way, only if there are significant disputes (for instance expressed in secondary sources in major peer reviewed journals). Iantresman has presented a case that there is a significant dispute on redshift, if this is true it should be reported. Reporting a dissenting opinion does not imply endorsement of that opinion.

On bios of living people, I think WP must present their views in a way that the subjects would reasonably be expected to consider to be fair, while doing so exclusively from V RS. Criticisms should be reported, again founded solely in V RS (from named notable sources, not anonymous declarations of consensus). The overall intent should be neither to endorse nor to denigrate, but simply to report. If either side fails in this then the article will be less credible as a consequence.

“Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature; it has no consistent and clear general meaning, although it may be used with a particular meaning in mind when used in a particular context. I think it should be avoided in general on WP because of its vagueness and derogatory implication, if something has been criticized as obscure, illogical, unfounded, false, or mystical, say that, and say why the source of the opinion is notable if it is not apparent, and make sure that the citation is accessible online so that the context can be seen.

The second example invokes the unspoken question is “Who is this article for?” If it is for the lay reader, then the text invites the sort of questions that iantresman is asking, and if they were seen not as challenges to what is written but as a request to make the article clear enough for the questions to be unnecessary, there might be no dispute. If it is not for the lay reader but for someone who already knows rather more physics than I do, then iantresman’s comments might indeed be seen as irritating, as it isn’t the job of expert editors here to give tutorials. If you can’t agree on who the article is for, then you will never agree on how to write it.Gleng 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replay to Krishna Vindaloo

KV refers (below) to my comments questioning

a) whether a Penn state sophomore writing for an in-house undergraduate journal [48] is a notable source of opinion [49]

b) whether an article in a Society newsletter [50], a publication not listed in the ISI or PubMed (see [51]) and not available online, written by a private sex counsellor [52]; with no other publications, is a reasonable authority for an unlikely assertion about chiropractic which has no other verifiable source of support[53]

c) whether a popular book entitled “Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, from Alien abductions to Zone Therapy” is an appropriate source of fact in WP. (see [54] for a review of it from a skeptical perspective)

This illustrates a generally expressed concern about dual standards: that skeptics seek to exclude information presented by those with whom they disagree by rightly demanding high standards of sources, but sometimes fail lamentably in removing the beams from their own eyes.Gleng 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JBKramer

I consider myself an involved party and have added myself to the list. I will make a statement here shortly. I urge ArbComm to accept this case to review the conduct of all parties. JBKramer 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy that was initially designed to prevent physics cranks from presenting their unique theories in Wikipedia - WP:OR. Ian and Eric have repeatedly and continually violated this policy. That they are actually correct about physics - that they have discovered the true origin of the universe - is not relevant. I don't care. If this means that Wikipedia will not be the first publisher of the true origin of the universe, then we'll miss out. Luckily, you can fork the project, and announce that Plasma Physics is the only true thing somewhere else, and be a hero. Wikipedia is for people who are interested in describing the current state of things, not a place for you to argue for your alternative theories.

Lerner has published a great deal of material - decades ago - questioning the big bang. Modern science ignored, and continues to ignore him. Since there is no verifiable secondary sources that in any way substantiate Lerner's viewpoints, but there are a great many verifiable secondary sources that state that the big bang theory is the best current explanation for the origin of the universe, it is appropriate to write that Lerner's theories are not accepted by mainstream science. This is true, verifiable, and NPOV. It is also what Lerner and Tresman oppose.

Finally, articles should be written by people without substantial skin in the game. Tresman is a supporter of Lerner. Lerner IS Lerner. I am someone with a slight science background who stumbled upon the article due to whinging on WP:ANI. If everyone who ever edited the article to date were banned from ever touching it or plasma cosmology articles, I would be ecstatic, because I am certain they would improve. I would be shocked if the other-side of this conflict believed the same. As such, they are editing against what they know wider consensus is - yes, they are the noble crusaders of truth against the scores of the rest of us, blinded by the scientific institutions that keep people with truly innovative and unique ideas caged up, requiring them to spend years studying the works of lesser minds just to get the three worthless letters we require to really pay attention to them. They should start protoscienceapedia, and then they can have all of the articles written however they want. Since it will get everything from evolution to the big bang exactly right, and will quickly become the prominent science encyclopedia on the net. JBKramer 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I suggest that ArbCom enjoin User:Ed Poor from dragging creation/evolution, global warming and the unification church disputes into this case. Those are political slapfests. This is science. JBKramer 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a key issue in the phil of science, and it is becoming an increasingly important area in other areas e.g.[55]as information becomes more widespread and as fringe groups and PS applications multiply. There have been many improvements lately, to the application of the NPOV policy on pseudoscience to Wikipedia articles. There have been quite a few editors who have contributed to these improvements, including FeloniousMonk mentioned above. They have largely centered on clarity, and specific explanations for views on pseudoscience. For example, the pseudoscience category has undergone quite a lot of improvement towards clarity, and its description has been improved in order to help the reader browse articles that pertain to pseudoscience. These more specific explanations have, however, been resisted very strongly by certain proponents of various pseudoscientific followings. The resistence strategies include; wikilawyering by restricting to pubmed articles for example, yet using OR with those articles; repeat badgering for explanations in order to cause conflict (a kind of vexatious litigation); groups of proponents using social pressure on single editors and making unfounded accusations; trying to gain votes from a proponent group in order to remove an editor from an article; and trying to use consensus to trump NPOV policy. In reply to Gleng above, Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliability does not state that only pubmed articles are allowed. Professionals and other experts are perfectly reliable, as are other professional peer reviewed sources. However, taking pubmed articles and squeezing blatant OR out of them is unacceptable. Some articles are locked, and there are cliques on both "sides". But working with the non-proponents is really very easy. Some reluctance to change is due to the intensely unconstructive behaviour of some proponents. Non-proponents are quite easy to work with, but compromising with proponents has led to proponents making personal attacks and persistent accusations of "pathalogical liar" etc without them even trying to access the peer reviewed literature that I presented. Now that editors have certain facts established (eg, alternave medicines being PS in practice or theory), there is still resistence to explaining exactly why those subjects (or parts of them) are considered pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific arguments are often placed in articles, and the scientific views concerning those arguments are often removed or altered by proponents. Pseudoscientific explanations and excuses are intrinsically confusing and just grossly misleading. The enormous resistance to explaining why certain subjects are considered PS, and the persistent addition of PS arguments to articles often makes the going tough. Pseudoskepticism hardly gets even a look in. Editors are simply making legitimate explanations for why a subject is considered PS. The complaints about pseudoskepticism specifically are unwarranted in my view. Editors are perfectly constructive when taking a PS view (which they do) and explaining it from the scientific viewpoint. I'm not advocating the removal of PS explanations, but they should be presented from the science view. If a PS view is fringe then it should not be part of the article. One of the worst things that can happen to an article is a PS view being explained from the view of pseudoscience. Fringe is not what WP is about and "Grossly misleading" is not what we want articles to end up with. OK having had a look at the difs presented, I can say that any un-adminish behaviour is the exception rather than the rule. In the heat of discussion some facts can be dismissed and I would be forgiving, especially when the dismisser is being attacked by hardened proponents. Certainly pseudoskeptic is a ridiculous slur, especially when coming from those with an obvious and proven personal agenda. Solution: Work to include all views with a clear pecking order of maj-min, if in doubt keep fringe, when evidence is presented to do so-ditch fringe views. KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of concerned User:Rednblu

Let us not forget that Wikipedia has made the most progress ever made in history toward giving NPOV access to human knowledge. But within that epic canvas of Wikipedia success and achievement, User:Iantresman brings to our attention two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV.

Many of us careful neutral editors have spent long hours trying to see exactly as much as possible through, for example, Newton's eyes--what was it that Newton saw in alchemy? -- and what is actually in all the superstitions that Newton, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush dream up, take dictation from, and pray to asking for their salvation from--global warming? There are plenty of scholars who have written brilliant and useful analyses of the powerful superstitious forces that govern American politics. But it is a waste of time to report carefully and accurately the WP:V of WP:RS of what actually moves George Bush and the Republican Party--because these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention rip NPOV from the page with Edit summaries that blast the pseudoscience in the significant WP:V of WP:RS of the significant scholars that these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV cannot stand.

And this problem is all the fault of the murky and self-contradictory text of, for example, the WP:NPOV page. Both of these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention follow the irrational part of the policy text of WP:NPOV that wrongly states that NPOV is determined by the consensus of the reasonable editors. Of course, the well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention are wrong about NPOV--for NPOV is determined by the significant movements in history, whether clear-headed or superstitious. And what needs to be fixed is the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV to actually support the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias" against the POV in the WP:V of WP:RS of the significant views.

For all of the above reasons, we should close this futile RfAr and reconvene at a Wikipedia ProjectPage to fix the murky and self-contradictory policy text of the WP:NPOV page so that Wikipedia policy is logical and actually supports rather than destroys the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias." What do you think? --Rednblu 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of semi-involved User:Pjacobi

If this case gets opened, I beg to be included. I'm a member of pseudoscience watchers' cabal. And if any article about a topic of astronomy isn't written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view I'd be happy to correct this. If didn't revert User:Iantresman often enough to be listed by him, I humply apologize. It wasn't on purpose. Note that I'm all for following WP:BLP and wouldn't tolerate turning a biography into a character assassination, even and especially for notable proponents of pseudoscientific theories -- compare the recent cleanup at Myron Evans. --Pjacobi 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Uncle Ed

I agree with the claim that FeloniousMonk and ScienceApologist have pushed their POV. They have misused the "undue weight" provision to justify this.

They are making a whole series of Wikipedia endorse their point of view on the Theory of Evolution and related topics. Instead of allowing articles to report what mainstream scientists think, they insist that the mainstream is correct and force each article to endorse the mainstream.

The remedy I seek is that articles on Evolution and other scientific controversies not be written from the POV that the mainstream view is true (or correct or right), but rather conform to NPOV policy and report that the mainstream asserts these viewpoints to be true.

This is a slight, but significant change. These articles need to "step back" and stop saying the mainstream view *IS* true; rather the articles should report that mainstream *SAYS THAT* certain theories, ideas, hypotheses, etc. are true.

It's the difference between "saying something is so" and "saying that X says Y is so".

The Intelligent design article is, in effect, locked up by FeloniousMonk and his clique. They allow no changes, however slight, unless the clique agrees to it; they also show prejudice against non-clique members, even on minor formatting changes.

They insist that nearly 90% of the article be dedicated to a proof that ID is pseudoscience. They will not permit the addition of any material that advances an argument or example presented by a pro-ID author (such as Michael Behe's views on blood coagulation).

I agree with the description of FeloniousMonk's behavior as uncivil and in general misusing his admin privileges. He has run a relentless campaign against anyone "new" to "his" articles, running them off with misdirection and specious wikilawyering arguments. He has even claimed that *I* (who am arguably the foremost exponent of Wikipedia after Jimbo himself) have "POV pushed" or made "POV forks" - but without giving a single reason why any edit or spin-off I've made violates NPOV. Then he misuses the bad reputation he has given me as "further proof" of "additional wrongs" - but the terrible irony is that he never gave initial proof, because he and his clique simply voted without giving any reasons or evidence. He is disrupting Wikipedia by this, and tearing down the sanctity of NPOV policy.

There are dozens of contributors who have tried to neutralize articles but have been thwarted and discouraged by the FeloniousMonk clique. It's time for this to stop, and for alternative points of view to be permitted in articles on controversial aspects of science.

Wikipedia should not endorse the scientific mainstream but remain neutral in all controversies. This is (supposed to be) non-negotiable. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guettarda

Acting in conjunction with Ian Tresman, violation of the blocking policy, User:Shell Kinney blocked ScienceApologist in order to maintain her favoured version of an article. Prior to being de-sysop'd by the arbcomm, Ed Poor also blocked ScienceApologist despite being in conflict with him (as a result SA changed usernames and resigned from the project for several months). In both cases, the block came from an admin acting to maintain a pro-Pseudoscience POV in an article that SA was trying to NPOV. Wikipedia has a real problem with pro-pseudoscience editors like Ian Tresman, ~~Krishna Vindaloo~~, Ed Poor and Shelly Kinney. Their continued POV-pushing hurts the credibiity of the project. Guettarda 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized to Joshua (ScienceApologist) for wrongfully blocking him, and he accepted my apology.
I do not favor pseudoscience. I just don't like pro-mainstream Wikipedians using the bully pulpit of Wikipedia to champion their POVs against marginal ideas. Let the articles say, in each case, that "the scientific mainstream rejects this idea" or that "all but a few scientists regard this idea as pseudoscience". That's all I ask.
Please do not misrepresent my view as asking Wikipedia to elevate pseudoscience to "fact". I want Wikipedia to remain neutral, not to take sides. The article should say X regards Y to be pseudoscience. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jonathanischoice

In his statement above, ScienceApologist contends that he is an expert in this field. He most certainly is not. Having a BA and a job as a community college level physics instructor does not constitute being an expert in anything. Neither Ian Tresman, nor Joshua Schroeder, nor I have published, peer-reviewed work in cosmology, therefore none of us is an expert in it. However Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perrat, Eric Lerner and others are/were experts, though they hold or held non-consensus views. This does not make them pseudoscientists. This should not be in dispute, yet ScienceApologist consistently reduces debate about controversial scientific views (especially views he can't argue against conclusively) into pissing contests about who is the more qualified or who has more published work.

Now don't get me wrong:

I have sufficient scientific qualifications to understand the relevant material,
one does not need to be an expert in a subject in order to write effectively about it,
I do not necessarily disagree with most of ScienceApologist's sentiments.

However, the problem here is one of dogmatism - a myopic, pseudo-religious insistence that the current scientific consensus is the only lens through which to view a subject. There is a difference between on the one hand crackpot theories trying to explain (or worse, dismiss and marginalise) huge bodies of observational evidence by invoking untestable, unobservable or imaginary constructs (eg. God, dark energy), and scientists on the other hand who believe that the current consensus is flawed or flat out wrong, and are working on alternative theories that try different starting assumptions (and by their very nature are incomplete and less well-developed). One is science, one is not. The history of science is littered with the remains of previously unassailable, consensus scientific explanations.

There is/was a similar debate in evolution between Gould's punctuated equilibria and the more traditional gradualists. Nobody except the most rabid and opinionated of adherents would seriously maintain that the other party weren't true scientists, and only Creationists saw the existence of any such debate at all as evidence that evolution itself was therefore fundamentally wrong.

Some of SA's tactics are quite simply outrageous, make frequent recourse to various logical fallacies, and border on desperate. For example (sorry, I don't have time to find sources for these, and some of this is long standing back to early 2004):

Blunt refusal to even read some of the important papers in question (WMAP discrepancies),
Blatant and obvious misunderstanding of the papers when he finally did get round to reading (or claiming to have read) them,
Constant recourse to ad-populum,
Complete and categorical dismissal of entire discussions as irrelevant (especially when errors in his logic are pointed out to him),
Trying to claim that Creationist ideas qualify in the same category as other non-standard cosmologies (obviously trying to tar non-consensus scientific work with the same brush as Christian fundamentalism),
Reverting edits without discussion,
Constantly editing and reverting until basically everyone else gives up in frustration and disgust,
Ad-hominem attacks on Eric Lerner's person, reputation, qualifications, status as a legitimate scientist, and so on,
A protracted futile and silly argument last year about an illustration of plasma filaments in space, sourced from peer-reviewed material. It was at about this point when I realised what a serious pain in the arse wikitrolls are, and pretty much gave up after that.

In other words, this editor is a wikitroll. Jon 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Bubba73, not directly involved

I haven't had a chance to read all of this yet, but I want to point out two passages from NPOV

Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. That is, if an overwhelming majority of scientists consider something to be a fact, it can be stated as a fact, with no weasel "mainstream scientists believe...". Bubba73 (talk), 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Joke137, happily uninvolved

This seems to be a clear content dispute.

Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism: Wikipedia already has a much more information about alternatives to the mainstream scientific views than an encyclopedia such as Britannica. This is as it should be: Wikipedia aspires to greater comprehensiveness and tolerance for minority views. What Eric Lerner, Iantresman, Jon and the others disagree with people like ScienceApologist and myself about are the meaning of the undue weight clause and in the NPOV policy, how sympathetically minority views are treated, and whether it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to correct the perceived bias of the scientific élites. This is a content and policy issue, and much as I would like to see clarification of this, I can't see that it is ArbCom's mandate to decide this. However, if it is, I would like to be involved.
Eric Lerner: Eric Lerner has been systematically trying, on Wikipedia and outside, to make his plasma cosmology seem as though it is a serious competitor to the big bang theory. Regardless of its scientific merits, few professional cosmologists have heard of it (beyond, probably, the refutation of Hannes Alfvén's work in Peebles' book and elsewhere) and fewer still have devoted any kind of study to it. He may is correct that his work is not pseudoscience, but it would not be entirely fair to label it a "minority" viewpoint, as we would label adherents to MOND. The ugly edit war on this page is between an effort by Eric Lerner to make himself look like a comfortable, respected member of the scientific community and ScienceApologist to discredit these efforts and make him look more like a kook without credibility. The truth, as with most of these things, is probably somewhere near the middle. Some comments above seek to make this seem like a personal vendetta or worse; to me, it seems part of the normal give and take of Wikipedia, although startlingly brusque.
Redshift: Iantresman summarises the dispute much better than I could: "The article on Redshift is written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view. But like some other mainstream articles, it nearly totally excludes some minority scientific views, to a point I [Iantresman] consider pseudosceptical, and consequently contravene policy." This is another long edit war, which has actually produced quite a good article, but one with which I have largely been happily uninvolved. This goes right back to the Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism point I considered above.
Creationism: Thank God I never edit this page.

Frankly, ScienceApologist is a seemingly tireless editor who does more than any other to stymie editors who are systematically trying to insert pseudoscientific and extremely marginal scientific viewpoints in Wikipedia articles. This work is extremely helpful to keep Wikipedia reliable and establish its credibility. He can occasionally seem abrupt or pigheaded in these efforts, but frankly I don't blame him. If anything, I think that he deserves commendation. –Joke 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a relative newcomer and an uninvolved observer, I have to agree completely with Joke on this. Iantresman is continually on the attack, throwing around accusations that do nothing to help bridge the gap between the two sides, and it is clear that he is a POV-warrior for this sort of thing. 'Psuedoskepticism' is a term used by ideologues to attack those that dare to be steadfast in their devotion to verifiable truths. Elerner, who is the subject of his own article, is another POV-warrior who is constantly, in conjunction with Ian, making biased edits to many subjects, and has even contributed in a biased fashion to the article about himself - clearly something should be done about that? Tuviya 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anville, not directly involved

I have had tangential contacts with this slowly-brewing brouhaha: a few months ago, I made a few relatively minor edits to redshift quantization (diff, diff, diff) and quite a while before that, I participated heavily in the first FAC for redshift itself. User:Iantresman's behavior during that FAC was, in my judgment, disruptive, including that frivolous RfArb filed against ScienceApologist.

At the moment, I do not have the time to prepare my own statement, but I would like to endorse fully the statements made by ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, JBKramer, Guettarda and Bubba73. Joke, with whom I just had an edit conflict, also writes a summary with which I can largely agree. Anville 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Harald88, partly involved

I discovered this dispute by chance; it's not clear why I was not informed. Like Iantresman I have had disputes with ScienceApologist on similar issues and for similar reasons; thus I consider myself partly involved. Probably some other editors such as Art Carlson would also like to comment.

ScienceApologist follows IMO a conscious strategy to promote dogmatic views by all means, such as by degrading, reducing and where possible omitting notable alternative views. I have no other explanation for the continued battles that must be fought with him to include even the most minimalized NPOV references to such views, even when such a reference is required for verification (WP:V). I expect more of this encyclopedia than an image of textbook opinions; instead I expect it to be inclusive of all possibly relevant information about notable theories and alternative views. That is not only in line with the NPOV approach, it happens to be also the backbone of the scientific method. It has become crystal clear that that is at times incompatible with the aim of ScienceApologist, whose editor name I therefore find objectionable - BTW, I thought that such names are not allowed anyway.

This does not mean that I fully agree with Iantresman or always side with him in content disputes: in some instances I actually side with ScienceApologist against giving too much weight and space to minority views. IMO, articles that suffer exhaustive battles between Lantresman and ScienceApologist end up not too badly, but articles that are dominated by either of them do suffer the shortcomings portrayed in comments by other editors here above. It would be a relief for other editors and certainly beneficial for Wikipedia if both of them would be able to steer themselves to more moderate positions.

BTW, exceptionally I have to disagree with Pjacobi on an essential point: In order to achieve a high quality of scientific articles in Wikipedia, such articles should certainly not be written from a "typical mainstream point of view", but instead from a neutral point of view - which happily is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. As Uncle Ed reminds us, this is non-negotiable.

Thus I largely agree with the statements by Iantresman, Ragesoss, Shell_Kinney, Gleng, Uncle Ed, Jonathanischoice; and partly with the statements by JBKramer and Joke137. Harald88 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Art LaPella, sort of involved

A week or two ago you guys considered making ScienceApologist an administrator and now you're considering sanctions against him, and I share some of that ambivalence about ScienceApologist. I've watched these two eternal arch-enemies and their fellow travelers for almost a year, and it's unlikely that the Wikipedia powers that be can say anything new to either of them. They each know more about science and about writing articles than I do, but I nevertheless often catch them trying to ignore something relatively obvious when they know better, especially the non-mainstream advocates. I think I'm learning to talk down the endless parade of cosmological would-be know-it-alls when they are pretending not to understand something. ScienceApologist does that too, but his methods aren't anything like mine, and sometimes both sides seem to be pretending not to understand something. But I'm reluctant to criticize St. George until all the dragons are gone. Art LaPella 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Recuse. As a neutral administrator I posted comments on AN/I about Shell Kinney's block of ScienceApologist and made suggestions regarding Eric Lerner's biography. FloNight 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Accept. We can't rule on content here; but can examine whether allegations of large-scale POV pushing have any foundation. Charles Matthews 07:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There appears to be sufficient allegation of user misconduct to investigate (on all sides of this matter) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline

Initiated by Fresheneesz at 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have tried talking for a loong time, and have requested that others contribute their opinion. Its time for a definative answer - this has been going on for too long.

I've definately talked to these editors (first step). I've tried to disengage for a while, tho it might have been only a couple days, I felt like that gave some time for things to settle (it didn't). I've discussed with a couple third parties, including User:Omegatron [56] (I think there was one other but i can't find the link to it). And I tried to take a straw poll.. buuuut it was deleted, as is part of the case. Fresheneesz 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fresheneesz

Firstly, User:Doc_glasgow has twice removed (and once striken) a talk page poll I set up at Wikipedia talk:Non-notability to gauge peoples feelings on the proposal. User:Radiant! removed it once before this. Here are the edits: [57] [58] [59] [60]. This is the most clear cut part of this case. Radiant is of the opinion that "A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice."

Please note that some of this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Secondly, User:Radiant!, User:Dmcdevit, and a couple others have tried to change the status of guideline pages and proposal pages, claiming that they know what consensus is (but won't show us where to verify that consensus). WP:STRAW has been guideline for a year, yet radiant has been pushing WP:VIE and WP:DDV on that page enough to be considered POV pushing and undue weight. Dmcdevit has recently demoted it without consensus : [61]

Radiant and Centrx have pushed Wikipedia:Notability as guideline when there is no consensus to do so. They cite that it is "current practice" and thus doesn't need any more discussion: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. Note that on the last edit, Centrx makes no mention that he removed the factual accuracy tag. People have tried to demote it back to proposal, place a "disputed status" tag, and the "factual accuracy" tag. But Radiant and Centrx have repeatedly demonstrated that they *are* a consensus of two, and that the less-than-a-month-old proposal doensn't need anything more to be a guideline - despite heavy opposition and controversy.

Radiant has been pushing his pet proposal WP:DDV with a little help from Centrx and Dmcdevit and Doc glasgow, here are some places where it has been changed into a guideline without consensus: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Here, radiant removed disputed tags: [72] [73] [74] More changes to guideline (this is all chronological): [75] [76] [77] More removed dispute tags: [78] [79] [80].

Sorry for the barrage of links, but there has been massive misconduct here, and I'm trying to compile all the references to the wrongdoings of these editors. Please note that many of these links also contain the previous editors objections about the consensus-less edits.

Lastly, there has been some harrassment at Non-notability where these same editors (radiant and doc glasgow) have marked the page as rejected or historical, when there was ongoing debate on the talk page, and editing on the main page: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]. Here doc changes a "disputed" tag to "rejected": [86]

The actions taken by these editor greatly disappoint me, and although I have much support from other editors, It surprises me that these people have not already been taken under arbitration.

I'm very much concerned abuse-of-power issues, and I feel this is very important to resolve. I appreciate *everyone's* input on this, however short it may be. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Andrew Levine

Fresheneesz has been involved in a personal quest to get his own WP:NNOT proposal adopted. Radiant, Doc Glasgow, and others began by making attempts to understand the vaguely worded proposal, and Fresheneesz's attempts at explanantion have made nothing clearer. We have tried to make Fresheneesz understand that his proposal (which would upend long-held consensus regarding deletion guidelines) will never be accepted by the community as a whole, but Fresheneesz refuses to accept the lack of interest and continues trying to promote it. Radiant and Doc acted in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. I apologize to the arbitrators reading this for the time he has cost you. Andrew Levine 05:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what little I have seen of this dispute, I completely agree with Andrew Levine. -- RHaworth 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

Perhaps we're about to get a lot of recommendations for rejection soon, but I'd like to recommend a case to look into Fresheneesz behavior, as I am now convinced it is going to get worse before it gets better. Note that he just spammed 20 people other than the named parties to try to drum up support here. [87] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#Tendentious_editor_on_policy_pages is instructive. This editor has engaged repeatedly in disruptive editing on policy pages with which he disagrees, changing the tags and wording, and the meaning, and has been met with many reverts. This is combined with proposing polls where none is needed, and engaging in personal attacks and, frankly, harassment against Radiant in particular. There seemed to be at least some agreement for banning him from policy-related pages on the ANI thread, and at the very least there was lots of agreement that he was being disruptive. He's accusing others of vandalism [88] [89] [90], threatening someone with "If you don't replace my poll, I'm going to arbitrate against you. You are the most abusive administrator I've ever come in contact with.", soliciting help by calling Radiant a "very abusive and violent editor", and just generally calling him abusive at every chance, including Jimbo's talk page and other unrelated talk pages, and is undeterred despite FloNight's diplomacy in talking to him about civility, User_talk:Fresheneesz#WP:NPA.

The main problem is his disruptive editing, and edit warring, at policy pages. Examples: Wikipedia:Notability: [91] [92] Wikipedia:Non-notability: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] Wikipedia:Straw polls: [98] [99] [100]; Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote ("Voting is evil", which by the way, is an ancient idea, not Radiant's pet project): [101] [102] [103] [104]

His reasoning is something along the lines of "these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient" and "No matter how hard you push on this, AfDs use voting", both of which are flatly wrong, though he is aggressively warring to try to make it true anyway. An arbitration ruling restricting him from policy pages would be useful, and put a stop to this massive waste of time and nerves. Dmcdevit·t 07:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Radiant

DMC sums it up nicely. Fresh is a textbook example of someone who had his favorite article deleted and starts lengthy litigation in an attempt to prevent such happenings in the future. He combines a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works with a stubborn refusal to listen to people that do, and supports his position with wikilawyering, personal attacks and denial of facts. He shows every symptom of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

The deeper issue, of course, is that Wikispace is rather murky, most guidelines and policies are in need of pruning and clarifying, and it would likely be beneficial to setup a WikiProject to do so.

I don't see any benefit in having a lengthy ArbCom case for this. Fresh has been warned often enough against personal attacks and harassment (not to mention vote-canvassing for this ArbCom case) that a neutral admin should simply block him if he does it again. >Radiant< 10:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short note: my "favorite article" that was deleted, eventually got consentual support to keep it. My "litigation" is an attempt to make a long and arduous process simple, and quick. Of course the path to get to that simple and quick answer is ironically long and complex. Fresheneesz 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone moved my above post, I don't have time to look into who did this, but don't do it again please. Noone else's posts are being moved, and this one is in direct response to radiant's statment. Fresheneesz 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-uninvolved observer User:DavidHOzAu

I try to steer clear of arbitration cases, but I think it is important that we do not shoot the messenger here. I can't speak for the issue about notability as I believe that is a separate issue. From what I can see, most of the misunderstanding stems from different interpretation of wording. It has been a week since I have had anything to do with the affair.

First, on the talk page of voting is evil I provided two lengthy posts to explain that discussion and voting are not mutually exclusive. [105] [106] These were ignored by most parties involved. [107] I understand that every editor is not obligated to take any post of mine into account.

Second, I have made two edits to WP:STRAW, and they were to remove the text that is current cause of contention. [108] [109] Note that in both cases I did not object to the reason behind Radiant wanting to make such an addition per se: I first objected to his undiscussed change to the guideline per WP:PAG, and then I removed it 3 days later because it was still an undiscussed change on Radiant!'s part. My opinion that the addition was rather nonsensical given the context of the original page is another reason, as stated in the edit summary of my first revert; I later elaborated on that opinion on the talk page over several posts.

My first edit was re-reverted by Tony Sidaway within hours 11 claiming that he couldn't understand my objection despite my descriptive edit summary. I understand that Tony has had similar sort of trouble in the past and I discussed it with him on the talk page.
My second edit was reverted by Alphax who decided that the guideline was rejected. [110] At this stage I left a note on the talk page and gave up.

I since went on to more important things such as finishing my responses to a a feature article candidate's objections, writing a script for tabulating results of the approval voting process, and giving gatoatigrado some suggestions for implementing the sidebar redesign which I was involved with. (For details, see my talkpage.)

In closing, I would like to say that this post of mine summarizes the entire issue rather nicely.

Statement by half-involved User:Ccool2ax

I am only somewhat involved, and everyone else is doing a great job of explaining what's going on, so I'll try to keep this short. I am an opponent of notability, so when I heard that some users were drafting a third Notability proposal, I planned to wait until a consensus-gathering stage, as I think/thought there was for guidelines. That never happened, since RaidiantI changed it straight to guideline. After this, I changed it back to proposal, but I was struck down. I left a nice comment on the talk page, but RadiantI struck me down by stating that there is a consensus. I responded with this stating that he can't make up consensus (which is what she seems to be doing). After that, I gave up, modified my anti-notability user box to match the new status, and went back to real life.

Statement by Jersyko

I have been involved in discussions at talk on both WP:NNOT and WP:NN. I am troubled by the fact that WP:NN is now a guideline, as I do not believe consensus favors it. I find it somewhat perplexing that Fresheneesz has been rebuffed in trying to conduct a straw poll. However, arbitration seems inappropriate. I see little evidence that other steps in the dispute resolution process have been utilized. I see little evidence of bad faith from editors, only evidence of sharp disagreement. This is not an issue that needs to be decided by arbitration, but by continued discussion. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some evidence of other dipute resolution steps taken. I've only left out mediation. I hope this wasn't a wrong move. Fresheneesz 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by marginally-involved concerned User:Blue Tie

There appear to be some personality conflicts here and I am no judge of those. I have either neutral or good feelings toward all parties. I have been asked to provide some response here by User:Fresheneesz and I do not object to doing so. I would like to provide my response in two areas: 1. Specific though minor observations about this particular case and 2. Observations upon conditions that may lead to this type of problem generally, without regard to these specific individuals.

Part 1. I have no doubt that somethng about the way that Fresheneesz has acted has gotten "under the skin" of some users and admins. I have not personally seen any behavior like this, but people do not just respond like this for no reason. However, in the brief reviews I have made of the problems involved, it appears to me that the problem is that some users just do not like Fresheneesz and it has looked to me like some admins were piling on. I am not as deeply involved as they are, so I leave it to those parties to address the specifics, and I would not be surprised to learn some information that changed my mind. But it looks like Fresh has been somewhat targeted. He or she may bear some blame in that but long-time users and admins may, by virtue of both their position of responsibility and experience, bear more responsibility for abruptness that leads to a general disruption.

Part 2. There is a problem on wikipedia. When organizations are small, concensus is easier to "divine". Wikipedia has grown. And concensus is no longer so clear. However, "old time" wikipedians, if there can be such a thing, have become somewhat moribund in their views. Essays such as "Voting is Evil" are in themselves "evil" and are a cause for disruption because they have become almost like a religion to some, but not all people. (Strangely, many of the editors who support the notion that policies or guidelines ought to reflect actual practice (descriptive rather than normative) seem most focused on things like "Voting is Evil" even though voting is the way more important things are done on wikipedia.)

So, while concensus on matters gets less and less clear as the population of users grows, "old time" editors will make a claim for concensus and then change policy or guidelines without concensus. When poll evidence is provided (or requested) to show that the claimed concensus does not exist, there is a hue and cry that polls are evil and that they do not reflect concensus (but typically only when the polls are contrary to the views of these "long-term" editors.

It is a kind of intimidation of newer users, particularly when the long-time editors may have substantial abilities to muster supporters to "discuss" the offending user. I do not blame them for working hard to see wikipedia grow positively in the directions that their experiences (or biases) suggest is right, but it is something of a problem.

When it comes to policies this is a more critical area. Wikipedia does not have good governance practices with regard to policies. It simply does not. "Anyone" can edit them. "Everyone" does. Claims of concensus are simply gorilla dust now days... there is no way to confirm that concensus exists -- indeed the term "concensus" is not even clearly defined. Is it concensus if everyone agrees EXCEPT for one person? Two? How many? Or is it by percent? Or if not percent than what is the standard? IT DOES NOT EXIST. So people get to claim that they have it and off they go. Others do not agree. This leads to conflict. That is what you are seeing. It is not that anyone is "bad" here. It is that the system is dysfunctional.

If wikipedia REALLY wants to avoid disruption (and its hard for me to believe this is a big desire at this point) it will develop better, more robust methods for developing and approving policies. At the very least, a clear process for policies and for identifying concensus is needed, even if the details are left up to the users. Until then, these types of problems will increase both in frequency and fervency. It will not mean that new users or admins are bad people either way. It will not mean that one person is "disruptive" and the majority are "clean". It will only mean that wikipedia has set up a system that is destined to produce conflict without establishing good means for resolution without coming to ARBCOM. That is your destiny unless you do something differently. --Blue Tie 19:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding further thoughts) I have found that one of the pages in question is being advocated as a guideline -- which I found out since my comments above. (I am strictly opposed to the page even as an essay, much less a guideline). However, I have researched the history of the page in question and I have found that the page has been aggressively promoted and owned by Radiant. Apparently Radiant has been involved in low level and high level edit warring over this page for a while. It appears that User:Fresheneesz is not long-suffering with this. Thus the dispute. I have compiled a history to a degree and would share it with anyone who requests it. It is an outline and I might need to add some diffs. But Ive tried to be fair and complete.

User:Fresheneesz listed 4 people involved. I have noted that Radiant and DMcDevt agree in almost all matters and their edits work together toward the same end in many venues, not just on the issues of concern to Fresh. But this may suggest to him that there is a concerted or planned effort. No evidence supports this, however, it is worthy to note that almost exclusively on the weight of these four editors changes to guidelines are being made. I believe that the heart of the objection by Fresh (and there are others) is a possible covert steamrolling effort on several fronts to make polls forbidden. This may not be according to concensus. Certainly the one that I am involved with is not agreed to by concensus yet these four editors are presenting it as an unquestioned certainty -- even as its certainty or validity are questioned. This assertion that it is absolutely true is the basis for the argument that their positions are absolutely correct. Apparently this is happening on other related pages as well. This is probably part of the issue that is causing disruption. Some have said that Arbcom should not be involved but I disagree: I think ARBCOM must become involved because these editors are apparently all admins and the people who are opposed to their views are not. This bears scrutiny. Admins should operate a step higher than others. Certainly they should not edit war. I think Arbcom should evaluate whether the charges in either case are correct and what should be done about it.--Blue Tie 05:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephen B Streater

I'm not a disputant here, though I have contributed to some of the pages discussed here, in particular with this edit. On the underlying issue of notability, my view is probably closest to Centrx, with whom I have had constructive discussions leading to edits on various policy pages.

I've spent some time resolving policy/content/people issues involving Fresheneesz in the past. His demands of respect for both him and his views (even equal weight for his views) from more experienced Wikipedians has caused friction in the past. Fresheneesz has been working to improve Wikipedia by changing what he believes are over-aggressive deletion practices on the grounds of non-notability, and this has gained some support. This has led to his insistence on some verifiable proof as to the actual consensus on notability. Deleting his straw poll and calling for a block or ban was not an appropriate step in a fairly important, though probably one-sided dispute.

I would like to see

Whether notability should be a guideline clarified
Fresheneesz to consider WP:OWN with respect to notability policy pages
editors to bring in new entrants to a discussion rather than engage in revert wars
Fresheneesz to have his straw poll, which could demonstrate the level of interest in his proposals
An end to hostilities between Radiant and Fresheneesz with appropriate apologies
All views to be heard in the discussions on notability guidelines

Stephen B Streater 20:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tawker

Just to put the above comments into perspective, Fresheneesz made some notify spam posts requesting comment on quite a few user pages.

Hey, I noticed you were appalled that WP:NN is now a "guideline". It simply doesn't have a clear consensus, and I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline that shows misconduct in the way a few users have been misconstrewing more than just one guideline. I would greatly appreciate your input. Fresheneesz 05:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz was apparently was unaware that posting messages looking for support was a shunned upon policy by the community (per stuff copied from my talk page)

I didn't realize I was spamming. Was I really? I was notifying all the people I thought were involved enough in the arbitration case that they could give an informed opinion. I would guess that if what I did *is* spam, the users I spammed would not take it as such. Did you remove any of my messages? Fresheneesz 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for letting me know. Just one question.. whats an "opt-in"? Fresheneesz 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, ok. But how would one let people know of a place to opt-in? Well, really my question is: what should I have done to let people know about the arbitration case? Fresheneesz 19:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But it might have a sway on the commenters that may be posting above and as such, is probally a good idea to take said information to light when deciding to reject this or not. -- 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved User:JzG

In the early days of Fresheneesz's non-notability guideline I attempted to introduce wording which clarified the policy basis for requiring a notability bar (WP:NOT indiscrimiinate; sufficient reliable sources to ensure that content and neutral point of view can be verified), in order to support the use of policy rather than subjective judgments as a criterion. These were removed. The current draft bears every impression of being an attempt to subvert long-standing community consensus and do an end-run around the various subject specific inclusion guidelines.

It may be a coincidence that this page was created shortly after a protracted dispute over coverage of UniModal, a hypothetical implementation of an unproven class of transport system. See the differences between Fresheneesz' version and my latest edit: [111]. This article was at some point deleted as being a non-notable hypothetical commercial project, and I do believe that Fresheneesz' opposition to notability as a standard may have started there. We also disputed the inclusion of various facts in various articles due to their significance and the problem of undue weight. This, too, may be related.

In my view this RFAr is both premature (previous attempts to resolve?) and pointing the wrong way: the editor who refuses to accept consensus appears to be Fresheneesz, and this RFAr is just another example of that. When a lot of experienced editors tell you that you are wrong, it's wise to consider the possibility that you are wrong, rather than accusing them of harassing you. Guy 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by barely involved User:NuclearUmpf

I just want to say I was first alerted to part of this through AN/I. The part pertaining to the Non-notability proposal. Fresh has posted on AN/I basically stating he was being prevented from proceeding with his proposal. I went and read over part of the talk page there and noticed soon after an influx of admins telling Fresh he could not have a straw poll because there was no concensus on his proposal. This seemed a little backwards to me as a straw poll is used to help garner concensus and find out what needs to be worked on etc. It seemed like there was no policy or guideline being spoken of that prevented him from making one, just people stating that he had no support and shouldnt bother. Lots of talk later I kept asking what the harm would be in letting him make one and if there is no support, it would show. I personally have to say I believe firmly in Notability as a guideline and that it should be one of the most important aspecs of crafting an encyclopedia, so I am not on Fresh's side, was just perplexed at how numerous editors, many admins, could spend 3 days arguing over how he should not have a poll, when a poll could have been created in 10 mintues and WP:SNOW would have taken over, if it had the little support the admins and editors claimed. I even cast my hat against his proposal, just felt like people were being a bit bossy and almost attempting to shut down a proposal they didnt like because they didnt like it. --NuclearUmpf 13:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:CBDunkerson

When Radiant! asked on AN/I for advice on how to deal with this situation I suggested doing nothing and continue to think that would be the prudent course. I agree there are problems with the proposed changes which make them unlikely to achieve consensus. So what's the problem? Leave 'em be, they won't garner a widespread consensus, the issue dies and goes away. If the user tries to make sweeping changes based on support from a handful of users it can be discussed and dealt with then, but forcibly preventing them from trying to develop a proposal just annoys everyone involved. When two admins find themselves in the position of having to parse semantics ('we removed a request for people to state their opinions in a poll... that's not "comments"') to explain why their actions aren't vandalism we've got a problem... because the user impacted certainly isn't going to agree with that semantic distinction and it isn't reasonable to expect that they would. Why so much effort to 'stomp out' something that was barely a fizzle to begin with... and how such 'surprise' that there are objections to the stomping? I haven't looked into every action by all parties, but the root issue here is that Fresheneesz is trying to gather support for a proposal and others are opposing... vigorously. Which I don't see the need for. Even a proposal to write all articles 'sdrawkcab' off somewhere in the wilds of the Wikipedia namespace isn't harming anything. Leave it alone, maybe say, 'I do not agree with this because most people read forwards', and deal with any actual problems which come up. As to this RFAr... it seems to have turned into more of an RfC, and that IMO is where it ought to be. --CBD 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement User:Doc glasgow

Gosh. Well, I've little to say. I've not been involved with any of this except on the Wikipedia:Non-notability - so I'm surprised to be a party, and I'm not sure what I'm a party to. This users seems to have encountered disagreements with a whole lot of people and lumped them together as if we were all working in concert against him. All that happened on Wikipedia:Non-notability was that Fresheneesz seemed to be trying to legislate against people uing notability as a reason for deletion. I (with others) marked the 'proposal' as rejected - it clearly ain't going to get consensus. He kept suggesting a strawpoll. I and others argued against that idea. He then unilaterally started one - so I struck it, and suggested that there was no support for a poll. He reverted me, I reverted him (giving clear reasons). Lame, perhaps, but hardly Arbcommable. There have been no earlier attempts to resolve this - no RfC on the issue. This is just one use who sees everyone who disagrees with him as an opponent.--Doc 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by concerned User:Rednblu

Surely I need not recite here an example of "heated Wikipedia editing"? Surely, we can think of our own live example of heated Wikipedia editing.

Operationally, the heated Wikipedia editing is done by voting. But the voting in heated Wikipedia editing is the chimpanzee politics version of voting, organizing a faction to overpower what officially Wikipedia colorfully calls "the crank" who does not bow to the consensus.

In this particular case, User:Fresheneesz will not bow to Wikipedia consensus, where consensus is "general agreement among the members whose vote counts in a given group or community in which each member exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." And User:Fresheneesz has a solid right to complain that there is no rational definition for Wikipedia consensus. For the WP:CON page itself lacks any useable definition for what consensus is, thus leaving each of us to our own chimpanzee devices of organizing some localized consensus faction of our own to get any problem resolved.

So how do we fix this situation? I would suggest that all of us appearing here at User:Fresheneesz's bidding should retire from this RfAr, which is pointless. We need to reconvene at a Wikipedia ProjectPage to clarify the text of the Wikipedia policy pages to be self-consistent. For example, since heated Wikipedia editing is actually done by voting, we should define in an orderly fashion some progression of experiments in various proportional voting formats that we 1) test and 2) select because they actually work in practice. Alternatively, if we want to continue the current sham of making policy according to the chimpanzee politics of the current consensus, we should define clearly the current mix of sockpuppets and cliques that are required to stabilize pages, defend quality, and keep the peace. What do you think is best? --Rednblu 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Recuse. As a neutral administrator I posted comments about this situation on AN/I and Fresheneesz's talk page. I left a message on Fresheneesz'a talk page explaining my recusal. [112] FloNight 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/1/0)

Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Try resolving the dispute(s) at RfC level. Don't assume you'll enjoy what the ArbCom has to say. Charles Matthews 07:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to address the questions of how policy is made and what consensus means. Fred Bauder 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwernol

Initiated by User:71.97.243.176 at 19:27, 27 September 2006

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Gwernol (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [113]
ZimZalaBim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [114]
71.97.243.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.111.117.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.111.164.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Saatana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [115]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried '

I and Saantana tried to talk Gwernol about his abuses to no avail. 71.97.250.11 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:71.97.243.176

I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses and intimidation by the user/ adminstrator "Gwernol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwernol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwernol (or his allies such as user ZimZalaBim) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the history of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwernol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do). They then after being reported revised the history page again!

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwernol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He should know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of people trying to improve articles. He also made unsubstantiated and possibly slanderous claims of an editor conducting "repeated vandalism" on the Jodie Foster which he has no proof of. He also belittled an editor by suggesting the editor should "strongly sugggest you sue" the school the editor attended because of Gwernol's perception of the editor's ignorance. These kind of insults and incivility are unbecoming of an Adminstrator.

I believe Gwernol and his supporters have abused their power as administrators to punish editors for content they do not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and Administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also believe Mr. Gwernol owes me an apology for the severe intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation, and probable slander he has caused. Please consider his expulsion or suspension and my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

It is NOT unrelated or irrelevant because it shows a Pattern of Abuse by Gwernol. The witness (a diligent editor) if he is unblocked could provide valuable important information on Gwernol's Pattern of abusive actions including trigger happy blocks for people he disagrees with! This is improper for an Admin! 71.97.243.176 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saantana has made some good points. Thank you Saantana. As for so called "legal threats" these were merely observations and advisements on the inappropriateness of Gwernol's actions. Also there were no "personal attacks" on Gwernol by me as far as I know and there is no record of this. I hope the Committee will consider this. 71.97.250.11 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Xoloz and User:Thatcher131

Point of Information For those interested, the "three words" at issue are apparently, "...or selling out." Reversion to conform to NPOV policy seems in order, I should think. :) Xoloz 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also 71.111.164.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gwernol

I have not changed the history of any page. I don't have the technical ability to do this. All the IP's edits remain in the page history for everyone to see. I would also point out that the block on this IP was put into place not for WP:POV-pushing but rather for repeated legal threats from this IP: see the edit summaries [116] and [117], and the talk page comnments from the IP [118] and [119]. The user was warned multiple times not to make legal threats by multiple editors, see the talk page [120]. The user continued to ignore this and was subsequently blocked for 1 week [121] for making legal threats. At no time did I threaten a lifetime block on the user, I merely pointed them to WP:NLT. I don't personally believe in indef blocks on IP addresses except in the most extreme cases. As far as I can see, all interactions by myself and other editors with this user have been done in a civil manner, but I would point out this edit summary from the user to me. If the ArbCom believe I have acted improperly I'll happily accept their judgement. Gwernol 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaining user has recently contacted another user who I have blocked, requesting them to join this RfAr, although that dispute is unrelated. The other user, User:Saatana is currently blocked for making repeated personal attacks, but if another admin wants to unblock him so he can contribute here I would not object. Gwernol 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Saatana who has been invited to join this RfAr, he originally created an article about the Fish Tank Clan, a Counterstrike gaming clan. This was sent to AfD where after discussion it was deleted as non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish tank clan). Saatana then recreated the article; it was deleted under WP:CSD:G7 by User:NawlinWiki [122]. Saatana then made a pointed personal attacks against User:NawlinWiki [123]. This was the first point I had contact with this case. NawlinWiki warned Saatana for making personal attacks [124] and given the nature of the attack, I added my agreement [125], pointing out that there were more appropriate venues for the content that Saatana was trying to post. I also noticed he'd recreated the article as FT clan, which I deleted under CSD:A7 [126].

At this point, Saatana decided to respond to me, claiming he had not made personal attacks [127]. I attempted to explain that the community had already decided that the article should be deleted [128] and that reliable sources and verifiability were important to Wikipedia [129]. Unfortunately this was met with a string of tirades and further personal attacks [130], [131] and [132]. The user was then blocked for 24 hours. He continues to deny that he has made any personal attacks, and fails to understand basic Wikipedia policy around verifiability and guidelines on notability despite good faith efforts by multiple editors to help him. He continues to "look for loopholes to exploit" so he can post his non-notable article, as he stated on this RfAr. Gwernol 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This forum thread is interesting too, especially "Oh well, in case anyone wanted the USER PAGE for the fag who deleted us: [link]" (by the way linking to the wrong user) posted by the user who is likely User:Saatana; and "i wana ruin every wiki that user has edited. what a dick. who the fuck cares if a clan made a wiki... wow 4kbs of wasted webspace...Man, Gordon, you stirred up the Hive" etc. Gwernol 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ZimZalaBim

Gwernol has noted all the relevant diff's above. Nothing has been deleted from the Jodie Foster history [133]. IP's inclusion of "or selling out?" is a non-neutral conjecture that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. User was warned of such, but persisted, followed by continued legal threats, even after warned (by myself and others). User also issued personal attack against Gwernol [134]. Block (and talk page protection) was entirely appropriate and within policy. Gwernol's actions were not an abuse of admin power.

On the subject of Saatana (talk · contribs), that user's activities are irrelevant to this issue, and their 24-hour block was also appropriate.

Statement by User:Saatana

The block of me was not appropriate, although it has expired at this point and may not matter to most of you, because I was simply pointing out that my experiences thus far on wikipedia had been dealing with people who were assholes to me. Yes I guess maybe this could be considered a personal attack and repeatedly I was pointed to an article saying that I was supposed to say things about other editors contributions and not about the editors. Well what exactly am I supposed to say about someone who has contributed nothing except to delete my post on their own arbitrary interpretation of the rules. I provided all information asked of me by those who wanted to delete my post and then nobody said anything to me about that but merely deleted the post. If, with the exception of one or two actual personal attacks that I did make because I was really frustrated because nobody would listen, the most I have done is simply try to exploit loop holes in your rules. That is no reason to be a complete and total jerk to me.Saatana 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Fram

Looking at the diffs, Gwernol acted correctly, and this arbcom case is a waste of time. If you don't want to get blocked, don't make numerous legal threats, and don't insult editors or admins: if you want the ArbCom to accept your case and support you, tell them the whole story, not some extremely one-sided version. The block of Saatana is unrelated, but also entirely appropriate, and Saatana would be well advised to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Fram 11:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Daniel.Bryant

I would encourage the AC to reject & dismiss this case as a fishing expedition, based on flimsy evidence (if that), in an attempt to cause disruption and discredit a highly-valued member of Wikipedia. Daniel .Bryant 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Threaded comments removed; reinsert in your own section if needed to support your position. FloNight 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Reject, no prior dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Charles Matthews 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, see [135] Fred Bauder 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editingoprah

Initiated by Zaphnathpaaneah at 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: This was done. Please see the notes on Editingoprah's talk page made by Zaphnathpaaneah at 08:53 on 25 September 2006 (UTC), thank you. --208.254.174.148 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware that user Whatareyou may either be another variant of editingoprah or a parallel user (They both edit the same articles often in tandem, please see their editing histories).

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

Avoidance requires that I relinguish my participation in the Black People article which I have taken a great deal of effort to contribute in.
Disengagement has occurred multiple times where I left the article while it was under lockdown for a period of eleven days.
Mediation - User:Editingoprah and I both initiated various forms of mediation, however, in all cases the majority ruled in my favor. Please see [[136]] which shows the results. It basically ends with a compromise (the likes of which I had already accepted), including Editingoprah's viewpoints (which have already been included even before he had participated). Finally he is 3RRing the article and constantly making small yet rediculous edits that go back to his original position prior to mediation! For example he removed a reference clearly cited , and replaced it with a ((fact)) then in the talk page he is insisting that I provide a reference for my position! Now he asks for a compromise, and I feel he is only following the process technically, yet manipulating the spirit of the process.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by Ezeu

The issue at Black People is about whether only people of sub-Saharan African origin can be called "black", or if non-African "black" people such as Negritos, Australoids, some Melanesians, etc. who are considered, or self-identify as "black" can be included in the article. This has been a battleground of laboriously conflicting opinions during the last few months or so. There is an overwhelming talkpage consensus that "black" is a term without a definitive definition (esp. talk archive 2). Despite consensus, Editingoprah refuses to allow the article to describe "black", from a neutral point of view, and time and time again he tries to push his specific POV. Editingoprah's opinions on the issue are somewhat, but not entirely strange. The article could well include his opinions, and other users have tried to accommodate his views, but Editingoprah shows little willingness to compromise, and blatantly disregards from general consensus. Although he has not crassly abused policy, I argue that Editingoprah is disruptive by refusing to abide by consensus (this has manifested itself again and again, see the Talk:Black people/Archive 2). I believe that Editingoprah is is a valuable contributer, especially since he often brings valuable opinions that challange the mainstream. The problem is that he tries to promote fringe views as if they are generally held opinions, and refuses to acknowledge that other editors are presenting prevailing, mainstream and verifiable viewpoints.--Ezeu 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Whatdoyou

Seeing as Editingoprah appears to be unaware of this process and thus once again bullied out of an opportunity to defend his/her self, I would like to quote what Editingoprah has said on the talk page. Editingoprah's point is that we need to be encyclopedic and have a clear definition of Black from an authoritative source. Otherwise there's no objective way of deciding who is Black. The aeta of South Asia are not considered Black in any census, nor are they genetically related to Africans, but Zaph inserts his POV that they are legitimate Blacks simply because aeta is vaguely derived from a root word that means Black in tagalog. But when others try to add the Black Irish, who have experienced discrimination also, and are also of a dark complexion (compared to fair skinned Europeans)Zaph arbitrarily decides that they are not Black-and I agree they're not, but if the aeta can be called Black because of historical nomenclature and prejudice, then why not the Black Irish? Here's what Editingoprah actually said:

The U.S. census defines Black exclusively in terms of recent sub-Saharan lineage. It states quite clearly that Black refers to “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. So while I strongly agree with the mediator’s excellent conclusion that we need to be encyclopedic by relying on census definitions, the notion that non-African descended examples were included in the census is categorically false.

Further there’s nothing at all to indicate that the British census includes people of non-African ancestry. It’s sub-divided into Carribean, African, other Black background, and all Black groups but Caribeans are African-diasporas people and other Black groups is for Haitains, and Black immigrants from America who are also of African diasporas ancestry. The other Black groups most certainly does not refer to the extremely dark skinned South Asians of Britain because their classified as Asian in the British census. So if we’re going to be encyclopedic and if we’re going to accept the mediators conclusion that the census of two major countries on two separate continents is reliable, we must adheare to African heritage, and not color, when defining Black.--Whatdoyou 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's important to add that editingoprah's the only one who is citing actual referenced definitions of Black from reputable sources. The others are just selectively picking examples of different groups being described as Black at different times and places. I quote again from editingoprah:

Dictionary.com[[137]], the free dictionary online[[138]]., the U.S. census[[139]], and the British census[[140]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[141]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[142]] --Whatdoyou 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

It looks like this is the kind of editing dispute that WP:CITE and WP:V were designed to resolve. Talk page consensus does not NPOV make. However, I see no evidence of prior dispute resolution. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Has there been mediation, or someother dispute resolution? Otherwise, reject. Dmcdevit·t 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Charles Matthews 07:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, a topic which cries out for disambiguation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Irishpunktom

Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? David | Talk 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference, the decision already states, "Should Dbiv be placed on administrative probation". It did pass, it's just irrelevant. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't matter; I was just curious why an irrelevant part would be included. I was under the assumption that even if an enforcement clause passed, it was not mentioned if the remedy didn't pass. Oh well. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think anyone has thought about it enough to make a convention. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [143] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [144]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the exception is to permit him to comment on the article about himself. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the judgement call of the administrator who is familiar with the problem and the edits. If you are reasonably sure it is him, go for it. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration [145], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

“

I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible?

”

Intangible 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should read edit-warring. If there are no objections, I'll change this in a day or two. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to combine this with the review of AaronS's arbitration decision. --LucVerhelst 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite clearly an error of notation rather than any kind of alteration to the decision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but both for the decision on Intangible as for AaronS's decision, I believe. --LucVerhelst 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consistent wording would then be "for any disruptive edits." That's our convention, I don't recall our ever using just "edit warring" in the probation remedy, even when edit warring is the finding. Assuming there are no objections, I've fixed it. Dmcdevit·t 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why one should have to wait for User:AaronS to come back to Wikipedia. His review is pretty much irrelevant to the above question. Intangible 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be picky, but is "for any disruptive edits" a convention used when the only thing Arbcom really had a concern with is the two times I was blocked (one block for just putting a NPOV tag to the Anarchism article—an article which has had that same tag now for about two months)? Intangible 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I consider your removal of sourced information from Paul Belien disruptive, and was going to ban you from the article until I saw that you and Luc were talking nicely on the talk page. Your interpretation of reliable source policy is frankly ridiculous in this case. You can not exclude newspaper articles as sources just because Mr. Belien says in his own blog that he considers the reporter to be baised against him. Personal blogs are acceptable sources for non-controversial information about a person's life; they are not authoritative regarding that person's perceived enemies. This sort of problematic source removal is part of what got you in trouble before. The alternative to having individual admins making judgements on what is "disruptive" is to fully reopen the arbitration case to consider all of your recent edits, including to Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. I hope you will avoid removing reliable sources from other articles in the future, as that will only create problems for all concerned. Thatcher131 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." Belien is professional journalist. He is also well-known, inside and outside of Belgium. Intangible 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if journalist A has argued that journalist B is biased against person C, that is not reason to exclude B's sources from the article but to include both A and B. In this case, journalist A argues journalist B is biased against journalist A (i.e. himself). That's an overwhelming conflict of interest and I doubt you would see the same logic accepted at Ann Althouse or Michelle Malkin for example. Maybe Arbcom should reopen your case. Thatcher131 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if journalist B writes that paleoconservatives are libertarians, which is refuted by journalist A, I'm not going to give undue weight to journalist B (probably none at all in this case). Intangible 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw and Paul Belien; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's own web site (hence, a mistranslation, according to Intangible); and in the other case because Mr. Belien has stated on his personal blog that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This doesn't seem right to me. Thatcher131 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS tells me that I can use both sources in those articles. Intangible 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the wording should just remove "by tendentious editing". You are quite right, of course, that the issue was more than edit-warring. Any other comments? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see above he has an interesting view of reliable source policy. If you leave it as, "may be banned from any article he disrupts," my question as an admin would be how it should be enforced. In the case of Paul Belien, can Intangible be banned from the article for his removal of sourced material even though he and Luc are talking politely? In the case of Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw, where there was disruption until the article was protected, should Intangible be banned from the article even though both editors were stubborn? One answer would be to file article RFCs or requests for 3rd opinions, and then ban from the article if he refuses to accept the consensus of outside opinion. That's a "process" answer although the gears grind slowly some times. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. Thatcher131 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was working with Intangible to get Paul Belien a little more balanced. Since a civil discussion on the talk page didn't get us anywhere, I put an {{unreferenced}} template on the article page[146]. He reverted it immediately, saying that the article wasn't unreferenced[147], so I put some {{fact}} templates on the page[148][149], and the {{unreferenced}} template[150], hoping it would make my goal clear. About minutes later, he did this : [151]. Of course, the two can be unrelated, and (assuming good faith) he might genuinely be worried that there is a reference problem with George W. Bush being the U.S. president. --LucVerhelst 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I think the situation at Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw is somewhat different than at Paul Belien and calls for a different response. I'm waiting for a third opinion from a more experienced administrator. Obviously, Intangible should not make edits just to make a point; doing so repeatedly will likely trigger the disruptive edits remedy in his arbitration. Thatcher131 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox:request for clarification of clarification

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first non-chart edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, [152] and [153], [154] and [155], [156] and [157], [158] and [159], [160] and [161]. Or, from before that, [162] and [163], as well as [164], [165] and [166]. Or how about [167] and [168] less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you do to; rearrange and/or rewrite the text. I still edited it before you, so you have no defense here.
I didn't know who Furtado is until you mentioned her? Stop being silly.
You never told me you had her album. Stop creating excuses to prove a point.
Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits you made directly after mine on a music-related article would be considered stalking.
I already explained that I had no idea Giano authored Simon Byrne. I knew he had edited the article featured days before, Belton House, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details.
It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again — it's quite clear? Really? What's your source?
You are edit-warring on Promiscuous (song). You are responsible for not providing answers and removing content (which you are basing upon the Billboard format).

Velten 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Wikipedia users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.
Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Wikipedia policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.
The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (Talk:Cool (song), from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a straw man argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IPs aren't accounts, so if Velten is limited to one account, she's following that rule. Mistakes happen. Do whatever is needed to protect Wikipedia, but don't punish someone for forgetting to login. It's easy to do (I do it myself regularly). - Mgm|^(talk) 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From the ruling: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." The ruling was in fact entirely about getting him or her to stop editing from a cloud of IPs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That ruling is about to be changed. This library IP address will not be blocked if others are editing music-related articles. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on ruling

The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I acknowledged what? The library has... What are you talking about? I think it's possible that your erroneous claim of my acknowledgment of this strange thing represents a mixed-up memory on your part of me telliing you that Wikipedia has new software that can block a whole IP range without affecting logged-in users. It's not much like what you're saying, but it's the only guess I have. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'd also appreciate it if Bishonen removed all content regarding me and/or EE from her talk page. She very suspiciously added this (without providing an edit summary expectantly) and I want it removed immediately. I don't care if Giano's name remains there though. Velten 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFAR and other bookmarks at the top of my page are there for convenience, as Thatcheer says. I need them there. But I can easily change the visible part of the one affecting you to something less conspicuous. I'm sorry it never occurred to me it might be disagreeable for you the way it was. Done. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The point is that IP edits to your favorite articles in your characteristic style may be reverted in order to create an incentive for you to stick to an account. I suspect if library users edit other articles no one will notice or care. As for the talk page, it looks like bookmarks to things that interest her, and you are only one of several. Thatcher131 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my point was concerning the music articles themselves — reckless reverting and blocking when one doesn't know whether it's me or someone else is silly. Velten 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever being proven that the 64.231 IP address belonged to a library; note this old but rather illuminating comment from Giano. Also, the "block anonymous users only" feature enables any other people editing from that IP range to create an account if the IP range has been blocked. Extraordinary Machine 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This business about "the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans" is obviously nonsense too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velten, the 64.231.0.0 range includes 65,000 addresses, probably a library (why not) but also a big chunk of the Toronto area. We do have the capability of blocking anonymous editors but not registered users, but that is at our end, not the library, and it is not always used. The bottom line is that admins will use their discretion when looking at edits from that range. Productive and useful edits will probably not be reverted at all; disruptive edits to your favorite articles using your style will be reverted and probably blamed on you. Assuming you have turned over a new leaf, you should always log in, not the least so that your good edits and good behavior are properly attributed to you. If you forget to log in or are accidentally logged out, a word on your talk page or the talk page of the article you are working on will ensure there is no confusion. Good luck. Thatcher131 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [169]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [170] one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute.
Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [171] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [172] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [173]
Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [174]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [175] that I had moved from the article [176] to the talk page [177]. In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page [178] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SSS108

Regarding Points 1-4:

I would like to point out that the Geocities site that Andries is now complaining about was created, with his consent and agreement, in mediation with BostonMA: Reference. In the past 6 months, Andries has never complained about the content (or ownership) on the Geocities site although the Geocities site is completely neutral, cannot be traced to either Pro/Anti Sathya Sai Baba Sites and whose content has never been disputed by Andries for the past 6 months.

Andries is now having a change of heart and is wishing to link references to his and other Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites in violation of a clearly stated ruling by ArbCom that forbids this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. It is also important to point out that since all these references come from reliable sources (newspapers, documentaries or magazines) they are not "owned" or copyright protected to Anti-Sai Sites. The material in question cannot be claimed by Andries as his own and was never originally published on Anti-Sai sites.

Andries entire argument is moot in light of the ArbCom ruling. Andries is unremittingly attempting to link to his Anti-Sai site so he can push his Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba agenda. Why is he so insistent that the links go to his personal, critical, partison and controversial website when there is a neutral one that does not push anyone's agenda? That is the question that is at the heart of this matter. To further illustrate this point, Andries feels that slanderous pages are entirely appropriate on Wikipedia. See Reference where Andries stated, "re-insert homepage of the subject in question robert priddy can slander on his own article whoever he likes". It is disturbing comments like these that prove that Andries has a keen agenda to push on Wikipedia.

Even today (Sept. 9th), Andries made a highly questionable edit where media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) were moved from the Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda.

I have also agreed to hand the Geocities site over to a neutral 3rd party. If anyone is willing to take over this Geocities site and assume responsibility for its upkeep (and update it accordingly, as needed), I will gladly hand the site over. I stated this when the site was created.

Andries has been trying to change Wikipedia policy on the Wikipedia:Citing_sources (see history) page so that he can push links to Anti-Sai websites (including his own) on Wikipedia: Reference. I posted on the thread on September 7th: Reference. Andries conceded that this argument preceded the ArbCom ruling and was unrelated to the ArbCom case (Reference). What is strange about this is that despite his former comments, Andries was attempting to cite this very same argument (from the Wikipedia:Citing_sources page) that he was using to defend the inclusion of links to his Anti-Sai Sites: See FloNight's Thread. Also see Tony Sidaway's Thread.

Regarding Point 5: :See Thread on my talk page where I gave reasons for removing this information.

Finally, the policy might be different on pages that have not had an ArbCom ruling, however, it is my contention that since ArbCom made a ruling specific to the Sathya Sai Baba articles, the general policy must be interpreted in association with the ArbCom ruling. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 == Current requests ==
-<!-- // BEGIN TEMPLATE - copy text below (not this line) //
-=== Case Name ===
+=== [[User:GreekWarrior]] vs. Wikipedia ===
-: '''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~
+: '''Initiated by ''' GreekWarrior '''at''' --[[User:GreekWarrior|GreekWarrior]] 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 ==== Involved parties ====
+* GreekWarrior.
+* TonySidaway.
+* And others.
 ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 ; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+==== Statement by {GreekWarrior} ====
-As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here.  If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words.  Please make your case in your statement.
+:  I am a proud Greek, yes it is true I do not believe the Srebrenica Massacre occurred, and I *do* believe that eventually there will be a final showdown between Greece and Turkey and I will be proud to fight for Greece against them. But this is besides the point, I have made many good articles, Tony Sidaway can show you these, even he knows about them. But..... I am asking that I a) be unbanned or b) have my sentence of indefinate ban commuted to a ban of a set time period. I believe my devotion to Byzantine topics is at least something that should be taken into account.
-==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====
-==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====
+==== Statement by {TonySidaway} ====
 :  (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.  Remember to sign and date your statement.)