Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linas (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 12 October 2006 (User:Linas notes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

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



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

KarlBunker's POV Pushing

Initiated by -- Selmo (talk) at 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that a ll parties are aware of the request
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 Selmo

I'm not sure about all paranormal related articles, but at the Telepathy article (which most of it should be moved to "Scientific experements of telepathy" IMO, because it focuses mainly on that instead of Telepathy in general). I came involved when I removed a controversial paragraph with [citation needed] next to it, on the basis of WP:V, whitch states

However, my edit was reverted by Karl. After a breif edit war, I asked to have the page locked. I was blamed for the page getting protected, an an exchange of unfriendly words quickly followed. I took a break from the dispute and when I found out that Karl won't mediate, I felt it was nessasery to take the case to Wikipedia's supreme court. -- Selmo (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by THB

KarlBunker's recent behavior continues to flout Wikipedia policy and to be detrimental to the project. Here are two most recent examples:

The removal of tags requesting citations as a disruptive tactics continues. On October 10 he removed citiation tags I placed: [1] He then removed them again: [2] He then replaced one of the statements after I gave up and removed it: [3]. Note that one of the original statements was incorrect and needed to be investigated and cited: Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal#Mencken qoute. (Note that the other was a direct quote which was unattributed.)

He also re-inserts weasel words that multiple users have removed: [4], [5].

Time that could be better spent doing useful work is spent worrying over these disruptions. It is very difficult to assume good faith on his part when there is a pattern of repeatedly removing any edit or tag with which he disagrees, inserting POV statements, labelling others' actions "moronic" or worse, refusing to take part in discussions in good faith, etc. This behavior needs to be addressed. -THB 04:00, 12 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)


Anonymous Gundagai editor

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

IPs the editor has used in the last month (dynamic ISP, probably dial-up):

Articles involved

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Thatcher131

I became involved in this case after a recent complain to the administrators' noticeboard. I decided to file this request in the wake of two long-term admins Bidgee and Golden Wattle declaring indefinite wikibreaks on account of this editor.

For the past 5-6 months, someone editing from a range of Telstra IPs in southwestern Australia has been disrupting articles relating to the history of the area, specifically arguing that the articles whitewash mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples by white settlers. While her views have some merit[1], her behavior is unacceptable and a textbook example of disruptive editing. She refuses to use the simplest of Wikipedia courtesies such as signing her talk page posts. She makes personal attacks against other editors and fails to assume good faith. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] She refuses to accept the reliable source policy as policy. [30] She relies on personal knowledge and original research. [31] [32] She pushes her own point of view, such as removing sourced information about an archeological site because it was disrespectful [33] but has previously insisted on including an event for which there are no reliable sources. The anon editor was blocked several times for disruption and personal attacks, only to change IPs immediately and continue editing (documented in the RFC).

Also documented in the RFC is the declaration by Golden Wattle that all future posts by the anonymous editor would be reverted if they were unsigned [34]. This decision apparently was born out of longstanding frustration with the editor's long, rambling and often abusive talk page posts as well as her defying of blocks for personal attacks by changing IP address. The decision was posted on the administrators' noticeboard and the RFC where it received a total of one favorable and no unfavorable responses.

The most recent blow-up began on October 3, with this edit hectoring the other editors in the body of the article, accusing editors of racism, with more hectoring and an appeal to personal information. Her edits were all blindly reverted, which was probably inappropriate because among all the hectoring was an actual sourced claim which was reverted but which has since been incorporated into the article. The editor complained about the reversions on (all 6) Village Pumps under the headline Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals, continuing with more personal attacks. [35] [36] She attempted to crosspost her complaint to her RFC and the administrator's noticeboard. Based in part on his stated policy of reverting unsigned posts, and in part on the fact that she was blocked for incivility and was evading her block through a succession of new IP addresses, Golden Wattle and Bidgee reverted these comments. Eventually User:NuclearUmpf stepped in and reformatted her comments (in the process removing some of the personal attacks).

It is at this point that I became involved. I asked the anonymous editor to talk to me, resulting in posts at User talk:Thatcher131 and Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. I left a response which I thought was a measured attempt to support her efforts to remove potential pro-settler bias while warning her that her behavior was unacceptable [37] [38]. She responded with more personal attacks [39].

Golden Wattle is definitely displeased with the responses he got from Durova, NuclearUmpf and myself as well, so I either split the middle pretty well or got it completely wrong on all sides. I also want to emphasize that while this most recent outburst was exacerbated by having her edits reverted as vandalism, her disruption extends back to July and before, to a time when Golden Wattle and other editors were responding to her article edits (which were full of POV and unsourced personal experience) with patience, incorporating her changes where appropriate and copyediting them when (frequently) necessary. I also do not believe this is a case of a misunderstood editor who does not understand the "Wikipedia way." Calling other editors racist, liars, vandals, thugs, feral, preschoolers, hoons, and having too much aggro is not the behavior of a newbie who is willing to work within the system but just doesn't know how. In fact, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* documents tendentious editing and personal attacks made after the original filing of the RFC, including against unrelated editors at unrelated articles. I believe this editor is disruptive, and is not interested in following normal conventions of negotiation and consensus, preferring to hector other editors and fight over the insertion of statements supported by only her own special knowledge. The topic is sufficiently narrow that attempts to get consensus for action on the administrators' noticeboard are unlikely to draw much attention. I believe the only available remedy is Arbitration.

[1] Of four main topics of contention, I believe she has useful points to make on two of them. However, her behavior makes it impossible to work with her. I will provide more details about this in the evidence section if the case is accepted or upon request.

Response to Nuclear Umpf Ten out of ten for assuming good faith, however, here is a list of requests to sign talk page posts.

I think it's clear this is deliberate, for what purpose I don't know. Thatcher131 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durova and NuclearUmpf I would like to briefly respond to the implication that this person has been treated badly and just need mentoring or hand holding. Today I un-protected Gundagai to see if the editors could work together, and things started out civil. However, here she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes, even though no one else was editing the article at the time [48]. Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved admin, asked her to refrain from calling other editors vandals both on the talk page [49] and on the user talk page of her current IP [50]. She responded by calling Sarah a "pompous troublemaker" and telling her to "buzz off". She continues to assert that her personal knowledge trumps published information [51], and has anonymously complemented herself on how nice it is that she is not a lunatic. So, how many more users and admins will it take to ask her to stop assuming bad faith and stop making personal attacks? Thatcher131 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearUmpf

As I stated in the RfC i believe the anonymous editor may be an expert or knowledgable in the field beyond the other editors and have common knowledge or information others do not have access to, however is still breaking WP:RS and WP:V by adding it. I feel the other editors escalated this situation beyond the scope of what it had to in order to silence this user. They reverted the anon's complaints on AN/I, the anon's defense on their own RfC and even their comments when simply answering a question on my talk page. This blanket reverting obviously turned what could have been a discussion and explanation by a third party into something worse. Part of the complaint has been them not signing their posts, but I believe this is because they do not know how to. The user has not offered any wikilinks or dif's as proof showing their lack of knowledge in basic "wiki meta." Further proof is shown above in Thatcher's edits illustrating that messages are being left on IP's that are abandoned, also by Thatcher's own inability to understand, and mine as well, why the only anon who has never denied any of the edits, would simply not sign them if they knew how.

I would like to state officially that I do not think ArbCom should take this as I believe they do not lack the ability to handle a case like this as they only explore spirit and don't actually try to solve the problem, the problem being here that sources need to be examined and provided and an anon user needs to be explained better how they can contribute their work. I think the anon user can or at least could have been a significant member of the wiki community and this is possible one of those cases where an expert is going to be chased off by non-experts, or at least non-researchers.

So in closing this situation escalated in a horrible manner by constant reverts, bad faith and inability to just add unsigned tags where appropriate as it was obvious this user had trouble signing posts. I also think Arbcom is wasting their time as was an RfC, if you are not going to educate the user and they keep getting new IP's this is really all moot. --NuclearZer0 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am writing this update as new information comes to rise. I now understand partially the refusal to sign posts and it comes from not understanding the system in place possibly. The anon user feels it violates their privacy to expose their IP everytime they post. I would say this is pointless since its recorded in the page history anyway, however after witnessing the users on the Gundagai talk page discuss how to contact the users ISP through former friendly personal channels, I am not really surprised by why they wanted their IP hidden, though it never was. I honestly wish everyone would chill out and actually collaborate on this article because a aboriginal perspective would be an amazing contribution, including claims of massacres if at least one WP:RS source somewhere wrote about it. --NuclearZer0 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update My last till this proceeds further, if it does. While I still believe that the people who have accounts escalated this situation, I now also believe due to recent events that the anon is highly volatile and not likely to contribute in a civil manner regardless of their possible level of expertise. The uncivil behavior has just gone overboard, there lack of understanding in the Wikipedia principles WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc, or just not wanting to actually read them has lead to much distress. While I still feel ArbCom really has no action here that would be of any use as they are an anon user, I do believe some action needs to be taken to curb this users disregard for those two principles above. --NuclearZer0 11:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Golden Wattle

  • Happy to co-operate with an Arbitration hearing should the case be accepted.--Golden Wattle talk 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately below, the anon editor claims she is no longer putting information on the Coolac massacre on Wikipedia. These edits of 8 October 2006 [52] [53] to the article on the Dog on the Tuckerbox would appear to contradict her claim. I am happy to expand on why meeting the policy of Wikipedia:No Original Research is so very important in the case of a national icon (the Dog on the Tuckerbox) and the highly sensitive issue of how Australians have treated the Indigenous people of the country. Perhaps for an example, see the debate between a prominent historian and the former Governor General (our head of State) concerning the Governor General's inaccurate references to another massacre. (see Sydney Morning Herald)
The Coolac massacre has no written records, either contemporary or current. There is apparently no publication with textual analysis of the poem linking the poem to indigenous issues as was the authority cited by the anon at one time (ie it was her own hitherto unpublished opinion). [54] [55] The anon has asserted The Gundagai/Coolac Massacre is the most significant Indigneous Massacre in Australia's history which is why it has been covered up. Gudnagai is the capital of Indigneous culture and this was dismantled at invasion and after so that invasion was successful.[56] This an extremely strong POV and any edits that support that view need to be supported with cites. She has persistently refused to provide citations for her assertions [57] [58] [59] [60] and no other editor has been able to find a cite to support the view.
While some suggest that the anon brings a useful alternate POV to the Wikipedia, she quotes selectively and inaccurately. For example, her first post about Yarri being mistreated was without due regard to the source and clearly using it to push a POV (caps lock and all) [61]. Her material on this topic has been out of context though perhaps this cannot be recognised by others who do not have access to the book she is quoting from or familiarity with the topic.
The anon claims that nobody has explained why she should sign tags. I beg to differ as per the diffs provided by Thatcher131 and there are many other instances. Why a person who claims to be 55 years old [62], who claims to have two uni degrees and to be studying for a third [63] and would appear to be a native speaker of English and not an Indigenous Australian [64] would have a difficulty with the concept of signing talk pages after many months and many many edits contributing here when thousands of other editors to Wikipedia do not have trouble signing their messages is beyond me.
I feel unable to participate on the Wikipedia while this anon editor defames me and the personal attacks are not removed. My actions in relation to this editor have been criticised as not being in good faith, criticisms that I am very disappointed to have received. --Golden Wattle talk 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anonymous Gundagai editor

Part of your statement was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages. If needed as evidence please shorten and properly attribute with diffs. Then you can reinsert here in your section.

Can I just make the comment that re Thatchers claim immediately above, he didnt introduce himself but just satrted issuing these commands. It seems he has tools and was threatning to use them but at that point no Thatcher had ever spoken to me previously and I had no idea who or what he was. Some of these admins just land on contributors with no wartning and start pushing people around, and contributors have no idea who or what they are or are not. I have since sussed that he seems to have some kudos but I still have no idea who or what he is.

The measured comment he claims he made is very unmeasured as in it he talks about claims made by an Indigenous Elder re a massacre, when that is very incorrect. The first claim re the massacre was made by the Projects archaeologists after being informed of it during earlier surveys by a Coolac non Indigneous resident. The Indigenous Elder referred to is a good friend of mine and he has previously been slandered here and now nonsense claimed re him. Whatever re the massacre, I have been saying for quite a while it isnt going to be posted here after publication of the final arch reports, so carrying on about it is ridiculous. My recent post was about Yarri being kicked and though I gave them probably the most credible original cites in Oz re that (Our National Library) or the local library for a regional wik person, that wasnt good enough. Some of the editors on wik seem to have an issue with comprehension and that causes problems. Anyway, too much 'he said, she said' right through this whole issue. If less said and more just did, such as dropped the bullying of contributors by wik gangs and planning to get mates to interfere with phone accounts, life might be sweeter. Whether the mob like it or not, I do know Gundagai's story way better than them as I have lived here for half a century, so they need to accept that. That I wont give them a scoop on the coolac massacre by providing them with the cites, no matter what they try, also needs to be understood.

One of the big misunderstandings here is that I want to put the coolac massacre up without cites. I am no longer putting the coolac massacre up and have not been going to do that for ages as they well know, as I do not now consider wik a suitable place for it. The cites are not available to be released right now as I have an obligation to a process I am invlved in, but they wont be released later. Those cites, (that some here seem to imagine do not exist because I wont cite them) are from Australia's historical record. There will be other cites through their process soon but they can stay on restricted AIHMS access so that other stuff is also protected. People get sick of the angst anything to do with Indigenous heritage seems to stir up from some so people learn to keep it restricted once the garbage starts to get thrown.

Thatcher may think a bit too much. Its pretty slanderous to claim what he does above. Thatacher also calls me 'he'. I am a woman thanks Thatcher. You seem to not be that connected I think but then I have no idea really who or what you are as you have not introduced yourself to make that possible. You did invite me to talk on your page which I did, but there was no response. You then bounced into the Gundagai discussion room a day after that and zeroed in on me. From that point I am now very very wary of what you are up to as well as previusly becoming very wary of the others (with very good reason seeing there was discussion re my telco and mates and back door ways to interfere with my account).
You know, at no time has any of these people ever said why I should sign posts, what it does, or anything. They just leave rude comments about signing posts. They need a charm school. My security would probably zap it if I did.

Statement by Bidgee

We (Longhair 1, Golden Wattle 2 3 4 5 6 and myself 7 8‎ 9) have told the Anon how to sign comments on talk pages and the Anon refuses to sign there comments. The Anon has been uncivil and has made personal attacks against me 10 11 12 13 and also has disrupted the wikipedia to make a point 14 15. Main reason why I have revert the Anon's is there information they have added is unverifiable or unsourced, Uncivil, Personal attacks, Editing when blocked (Editing a talk page or getting a new IP that isn't blocked to edit with) and Unsigned comments on talk pages. I'm still newish to Wikipedia and I still have a lot to learn however on what has happened in the past few months is putting me off Wikipedia. You can find more about the issues we have had at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* -- Bidgee 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have asked the Anon more then once to sign and how to sign there comments on talk pages and they continue to add unsigned comments 16 17. The unsigned comments makes it hard to understand who has said what. -- Bidgee 04:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Anon has been uncivil 18 19 and making clams that I have reverted there edits 20 which I haven't 21 and they continue to have there comments unsigned. -- Bidgee 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of concern by User:Rednblu

So often we forget that we all descended from the same group of fewer people than would fill the average professional football stadium. The "aborigines" got to Australia first, and their European cousins came in later. The aborigines remember over the many years a painful event that happened generations ago in a vague area of land. It is the nature of humans to let their traumatic places of memory free again into the wild: Machu Pichu, Troy, the Garden of Eden, Olduvai Gorge, Coolac, . . . . Some of them were found again; some were not. An Australian environmental impact report characterized the Gundagai site this way: "The exact location of the possible Aboriginal massacre site could not [be] determined." (at 36). And I thank User:NuclearUmpf's Update for starting me on this train of thought. So as technology reunites us on more and more projects, can we find a place for aboriginal citations? --which surely are the most ancient citation WP:V and WP:RS methods that we have in common. Perhaps Wikibooks would do. And of course, we may find some Wikipedia variety of WP:V and WP:RS along the way if we are patient. What do you think? --Rednblu 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Durova

I became aware of this at the Village Pump. While Golden Wattle explained several of my concerns adequately at my user talk page, I'm not confident that this is the right time for ArbCom to take up this case. The hammer seems to have come down rather hard on this anonymous Gungadai editor. I'd like to see formal mediation or WP:3O tried. This anon might improve with a mentor. This person did attempt to join the RfC as soon as I suggested it, but the anon's response was reverted through popups.

Given that popups were used so extensively, I'm still willing to give this anon the benefit of the doubt. While this person's behavior has been antagonistic, the popup reverts had an understandably frustrating gagging effect. What concerns me most about the popup blanking was that it was performed without community consensus (in the form of a topic ban or a community ban). However meritorious the intentions of the other editors might be in this instance, I'm concerned about the precedent this could set: suppose a group of bad faith editors on another article used this technique disruptively to provoke and oust a new and well-informed editor?

What I'd really like to see is an earnest effort at reconciliation. If that fails I'd support arbitration, but as yet there are a few stones left unturned. Respectfully submitted, Durova 06:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
Moved lengthy text taken directly from RFC statements and article talk pages to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages for Anonymous Gundagai editor to shorten and properly attribute with diffs. FloNight 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

SlimVirgin

Initiated by -- Kim van der Linde at venus at 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SlimVirgin

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Specific between her and me, none. In the wider context, many (RfC's, ANI complaints, talk-page discussions, etc), most recently: RfAR request on New anti-Semitism.

Statement by KimvdLinde

Most of the complaints in the recent, and rejected ArbCom case on New anti-Semitism revolved around SlimVirgin [65]. The case was rejected but as Dmcdevit observed:
There are some serious problems here. There may even be personal cases to be made about individuals associated with this dispute. [66]
I agree, and I think SlimVirgin fits the description. She has a long history at Wikipedia, unfortunately with a substantial number of complaints by fellow editors, including ownership of articles [67] [68], incivility [69], personal attacks and harassment of editors [70] among others. The interactions between SlimVirgin and editors who object to her POV-pushing or edit her favourite articles in a way she does not like follows a familiar pattern in which they are approached aggressively and told that they are out of line (example, for this edit), labelled all kind of things, etc., while editors who ascribe to her POV are supported and protected. However, this will be a difficult case for the ArbCom as many of the individual actions will be within the realm of the just acceptable, however, together they form a worrying pattern of ownerhsip and harassment.
As a concrete case of ownership, I provide a summary of the statement I made in the previous RfAR.[71] However, this is not the only case of misrepresenting sources and resisting that it gets fixed.
The situation revolves around the insertion of a quote, which is misrepresented as a conclusion in the report: "A British parliamentary inquiry concluded that ...." (contra http://thepcaa.org/Report.pdf: p.32., § 158) when it was nothing more than evidence that the inquiry heard and does not appear in the conclusions of the report. It was inserted twice by SlimVirgin image caption main text and was subsequently discussed extensively at the talk page: Accuracy in quoting. CJCurrie removes the image [72] around 16:30, SV restores it with modified caption still focussing on the evidence [73]. At 21:42, several removals and reinsertions and a long talk-page discussion (50-80 posts) further SV moves the image and changes it to a more appropriate caption[74]. Summarizing, the incident starts at 16:08, Sept. 7 [75] and heavy discussion (50-80 posts) at the talk page follows [76] and ends at 21:42 [77]. This example shows how people who want to change even a minor mis-attribution of a quote can get dragged into a heavy, 5 hour discussion with her, before something small is changed appropriately. This effectively leads to editors backing of and results in a de facto ownership of the article.
Another example of dubious behavior includes the non-response and immediate archiving of questions that were first asked during the New Anti-Semitism mediation [78], which raises serious doubt about how she deals with the page (see diff). When the questions were later repeated at the NAS talk page [79], a brief interaction without addressing the questions followed, and she archived it about 30 minutes (!) after the questions were asked again [80][81].
I have stricken a small part of the statement after the question of Dmcdevit below. The statement section was not really relavant for the remainder of the case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not RfM?
  1. This ArbCom case is not limited to a single article, or single situation, but focusses much more general problem.
  2. The last RfM on the intro of New anti-Semitism is still open with no apparent activity, and is raising the same type of questions. As SlimVirgin claims this is incorrect, after the intro was fixed (but since then rewritten), Mel Etitis makes a few posts and then disappears [82] [83] [84]
  3. NAS was effectivly completly rewritten by SlimVirgin after the previous mediation has ceased, her asking other people to stay away from the article [85] while ignoring that the mediation was with several other people, like CJCurrie who's questions never got answered.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Added diffs. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I am surprised by the fast rejection of this case. Others have not even gotten a change to add their statements. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide a detailed response to SlimVirgin's many unfounded accusations at this page User:KimvdLinde/SV-RfAR as my statement here is already close to or just over 500 words. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, what you are saying is that because nobody gets a chance to edit the article because SlimVirgin is effectively controling the article, and that because of that, she needs to write for the enemy, that the case should be rejected because she writes for the enemy. LOL.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's responses are getting more hilarious with each post, and I get accused of being anti-Israel as well as that I deny that new anti-Semitism exists. She will never admit it, but she is wrong on both accounts. Or maybe I have to see it different. Compared to her very pro-Israel position, I am surely more towards the anti-Israel side than she is. However, my position at the full scale is still far off from what generally is considered anti-Israel. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nagle (talk · contribs)

I've certainly had content disagreements with SlimVirgin, but I have to say that since the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid episode, which resulted in a mild admonishment for SlimVirgin and some other editors, I haven't seen truly serious improper behavior by this editor.

There have been mild personal attacks, events that came close to tag-team reverts by SlimVirgin and Jayjg (talk · contribs), and a certain amount of article ownership coupled with rejection of material from other editors. In general, this added up to an insistence that anything that wasn't pro-Israel in an article in which SlimVirgin and Jayjg were active must be held to the highest standards. Similar standards are not required of pro-Israel material. The overall effect is to put a pro-Israel spin on articles. The main articles affected (that I know of) are Allegations of Israeli apartheid, New anti-Semitism, Hasbara, and Israeli West Bank barrier.

There's not much question that something like this is going on. We established that in the "Israeli Apartheid" arbitration. The question is whether this is to be considered an acceptable tactic on Wikipedia.

Perhaps all that's really needed is some mechanism for quick recourse to a neutral mediator when SlimVirgin and Jayjg are active in opposing changes to an article. Currently, these two editors tend to act as if they are the final authority on the content of certain articles. This can be a problem. --John Nagle 04:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (mostly to Charles)

If you look at Requests for Mediation you will see the page has been stagnant for some time. Essjay, chair of Medcom, has been inactive for 3 months, and no one has stepped up to fill the void. There are 38 cases awaiting a decision on whether to accept or reject, and 4 accepted cases that have had no mediator assigned for at least 2 months. I understand the need for prior dispute resolution, but I am not sure that mediation is a practical recourse at the current time. I made note of this some time ago on the administrators' noticeboard, but nothing seems to have been done. Thatcher131 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't accept the idea that this area is unsuitable for mediation attempts. It seems exactly right for mediation, and the fact that a previous Arbitration case has apparently not cleared the air only adds to that. There is clearly some feeling on the ArbCom side that going over old ground on this is not going to produce anything different from before (I'm not trying to pre-empt a possible acceptance, we'll see). But from the point of dispute resolution it is no good just to ask for more rulings. Charles Matthews 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply more suitable for the talk page. Thatcher131 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of concern by User:Rednblu

Kim brings to our attention a very serious problem that destroys quality and NPOV in many places in Wikipedia. But the problem is a policy problem and not a personal problem. And mediation is ineffective in assisting parties in this kind of community problem. So this is an appropriate place for this discussion--until someone finds another forum that actually gets people to engage with this very serious and destructive problem that Kim brings to our attention.

The core of this community problem is that Wikipedia policy encourages in localized hotspots an unhealthy ecosystem in which a destructive 1) localized consensus faction "owns" pages, and the editors that defend quality and NPOV are distracted by the 2) ad hominem fallacies that the localized consensus faction mobilizes in defense of their turf.

I realize that the above paragraph is too abstract to use just yet. Accordingly, I will revise this place holder as I think of some more useable statement of the problem. A useable statement of the problem should focus on the problem here and not on SV. --Rednblu 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dr Zak

I recently nominated a dubiously sourced image of SlimVirgin's on WP:PUI [86] and promptly got accused of wikistalking,[87], [88] presumably because I voted for deletion at Gill Langley and also tried to edit Rat Park. The image (Image:GershomScholem.jpg) has since been deleted. (Here is the explanation how I came across it. [89])

The continuous assumptions of bad faith editing,[90] sniping [91], the failure to address content issues [92] and especially the requests to back off to prove one's good faith [93] do nothing to encourage collaborative editing, and I therefore urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. Dr Zak 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

What KimvdLinde is trying to set up here is an arbitration workshop page that she can turn into an attack page and post criticism of me to her heart's content, along with any other editor holding a grudge. An RfAr should present compelling evidence of wrong-doing after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Her claims above are not only false and misleading, but if true, would still not amount to grounds for arbitration, and she has sought no mediation; on the contrary, she rejected it when I tried to arrange it.

The issue is simply this: Kim has a strong anti-Israel POV. She sees her POV as neutral and regards anyone who opposes her as having an unacceptably strong pro-Israel POV. In addition, she's not familiar with the issues, which means she has difficultly finding good academic sources to support her POV. She regards the academic sources on the other side as inherently suspect because she disagrees with them. All this makes for a frustrating editing experience for her on those articles. Rather than take any responsibility for that, she lashes out and wants to see the other "side" punished. Her RfArs are attempts to use dispute resolution to control content by punishing editors she disagrees with.

Some pertinent issues:

  • 1. Kim has been trying to cause trouble for editors she perceives as "pro-Israel" since June. This is her fourth involvement in three months in RfArs on the subject, and her third involvement in the same time in an RfAr against me: the first was in July over Allegations of Israeli apartheid, in which she was instrumental, and the second last month over New anti-Semitism. In July, I tried to organize formal mediation when she was complaining about Israeli apartheid, but it was KimvdLinde, along with BHouston and John Nagle, who turned it down, [94] insisting on arbitration. She doesn't want to sort out any problems (and, indeed, there are none to sort out now); she wants the ArbCom to impose some kind of punishment on me. (Her reference to the new anti-Semitism mediation still being open is wrong, by the way. Editors couldn't agree on a lead section so I arranged informal mediation in May; the mediator made suggestions which were accepted and that was the matter dealt with.)
  • 2. Here's one example of how she's been following me around looking for the chance to cause me a problem. In September, Everyking was desysopped after offering to supply Wikipedia Review with a copy of an edit I had deleted, which purported to identify a Wikipedian. Dmcdevit oversighted it around September 5. A discussion ensued on AN about whether Everyking should have been desysopped. On September 7, KimvdLinde posted that she had read the deleted edit and could see no reason for me to have deleted it. [95] I asked her how she could read it given that it had been oversighted. She replied that she had kept a copy of it on her computer before it was oversighted. [96] She had nothing to do with the article, Everyking, or any of the issues, so the reason she kept it was almost certainly because she was hoping she could use it to stir up trouble for me. I find it worrying that she's appointed herself as oversight guardian and is keeping copies of deleted material. Similarly, she alleged in the first version of her statement above that I had abused admin tools. When Dmcdevit noted that she'd supplied no evidence of that, she struck out the claim, but then posted to his talk page that she had supplied no evidence of it "at this time," [97] which suggests that her search continues. I suggest she file an RfAr after she's found evidence and not before.
  • 3. I believe most of the points and diffs she offered above were made during her statement on the New anti-Semitism RfAr (some of it just copied over), which was rejected. It's not acceptable to recycle rejected requests with a new title hoping the second bite will work.
  • 5. Kim has announced several times that she has left Wikipedia (for example here) and most of the editing she's done in the last few months has been to involve herself in arbitration, complain on talk pages about how terrible Wikipedia is, and discuss how various people forced her out. I have "contributed" to her leaving; [100] FloNight gave her the "strong urge to leave"; [101] "people like" Crzrussian made her want to leave; [102] failing to get her own way during her last RfAr attempt against me made her "want to be on [her] way out of Wikipedia". [103] And there are many other examples. At some point, she either needs to go, or stay and be a regular editor. But it's not acceptable for her to hang around in order to stir up conflict. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add something in light of the responses. The complaints around New anti-Semitism and related articles, and the repeated attempts to have ArbCom punish certain editors, have come from the same small knot of users: KimvdLinde, John Nagle, Bhouston, CJCurrie, Homeontherange, and a couple of others, who share a strong anti-Israel POV, and who oppose the idea that there's such a thing as new anti-Semitism.
There's nothing wrong with having an anti-Israel POV, just as there's nothing wrong with having a pro-Israel one. But as Wikipedians, we have to be willing to think, research, and write from both sides. Bhouston and CJCurrie's responses below give no indication that they understand that. Bhouston objects to my saying he made no contributions, by pointing out that he wrote up some research on his user subpage on Brian Klug, someone he agrees with. CJCurrie writes that he was thinking of adding something on Norman Finkelstein, someone he agrees with. But neither of them mentions writing a section on the views of someone they disagree with; and if they ever did contemplate doing it, it would be to undermine the position, not to explain it. I can't imagine any of these users ever adding substantial material from a Zionist point of view; and really explaining it in a respectful way that the Zionist author would approve of.
At New anti-Semitism, I looked for the strongest arguments on both sides and presented them in a way I believe the authors of the arguments would have agreed with. I added images of the opponents and captions repeating their strong views. I wrote to some of them to check that I'd presented their positions adequately and recently received a reply (from an opponent of new anti-Semitism) saying: "I very much appreciate the trouble that you are taking to reflect my views accurately..."
The edits I've tried to prevent are ones that are badly written, badly researched, snide, or that seek to present a position in a way that undermines it before it even gets off the ground, and I make no apology for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avillia

This is the exact sort of situation that the arbitration system is made for.

  • First, in what will be labelled as a attack against SlimVirgin before this is done, a reply to notation about Kim's state of leaving-but-not-leaving. I'll remind everyone of repeated incidents of, well, SlimVirgin doing this exact same thing some time ago. Since SlimVirgin's talk page is "archived" without another page being edited, this is a tiny bit hard. However, the edit history does remain for those willing to spend a few hours going through what would be described as, admittedly, ancient history. "leaving" after the MSK/Blu Aardvark incident was revived by LinuxBeak. Over the next weeks, if memory recalls, this was a repeated cycle of leaving, returning, "getting fed up from harassment", and leaving again.
  • Second, a bit less on rebutting against venom and a bit more on topic, Mediation has a /SERIOUS/ backlog with Essjay's departure and a increasing loss of mediators without a increase in recruitment. These sets of issues have been brought before mediation numerous times, and they've resulted in the same indecision due to it's controversy and some of the things raised in Kim's statement.
  • Third, there's STILL issues about PoV and Israel/Jewish-related articles. There always will be, probably, but a very key thing is that the same set of "players" warring with each other over every possible item in the loosely defined group above. It might be a outlandish suggestion, but if we're still on this months later, a possibility to easing the tention on these articles might be banning. Across the board, both sides of the argument, everyone who's been consistently dramatic in the article set. Let new blood at work, and see if the results are better off, considering the considerable stress this entire situation has constantly caused the community.
  • Fourth, in what might be considered as an extention of the above, Slim's been a fairly constant source of community stress and debate. These issues should be handled and the shovels stoutly buried. Slim's probably one of the most active disputants with the dispute resolution process by now. As long as these issues keep flying past and the dispute process spins it's wheels, the tension is going to continue to build, and Wikipedia will, as a whole suffer from it.

Kim is, I know, a good person. Slim, eh, I haven't had the best of relations with, but, well, I'm assuming the same. We need to resolve these things, and get back to editing, and at this stage it appears that the only satisfactory resolution is going to be a case in the ArbCom. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ben Houston

The claim above that only SV is doing the research and the rest of us are slackers and simple critics is a total crock. I have done tons of high quality research for the New anti-Semitism article. I have spent time at my alma mata library doing research as well. For example, here are some of my rough working notes from September 10th and earlier:

SV cherry picks one example where she asked for contributions and no one answered, but where I have offered contributions I am outright ignored -- see this section for the latest example [104]. Because no one else can edit the article, SlimVirgin does end up writing most of what is there -- but to use this to retroactively justify her actions is improper and it shocks me that it has been accepted. Many people can write for both sides, and to smear her critics with such a simple accusation is low. SV does aggravate people and keep a hold on the article and it has the effect of ensuring that no one can get a foothold in the article to start seriously contributing and of course they end up criticizing her for this behavior -- and then it allows for her to paint her critics and just angry and nonsensical. SV is engaging in self-fulfilling behavior and has been for some time. To be honest, after spending a lot of energy trying to make contributions to the article and being persistently rejected it makes one want to give up -- and this fits perfectly with the displayed modus operandi displayed by SV. --Ben 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that at one point the NAS article had a section on the academic boycott proposals. I took that, and since people had problems editing the NAS article, I expanded that to a full separate article here Academic boycotts of Israel and I also wrote the similar Academic boycotts of South Africa. Also there is a section in the NAS article about conspiracy theorizing about the "Jewish lobby". I couldn't edit the NAS article, but instead I created the two related articles Arab lobby in the United States and Israel lobby in the United States. The last article isn't done yet but its a start. I also suggested long ago that the NAS section on Bans on ritual slaughter be made into its own article and I have made significant contributions to it now that it is -- and I believe I covered it in an NPOV fashion in the way I have structured that article. I can write researched and accurate articles on the topics in the NAS article but since I am not allowed to touch it, I have had resort to contributing to articles adjacent to it. In a way, this strategy of mine of fully covering the topics covered by the previous versions of the NAS article has reduced the power SV has had in defining how these various topics are covered in Wikipedia. --Ben 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SV's specific aggravating behavior with to the respect to this small set of articles aside, she is a clearly an incredibly valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I am not sure what to do about her behavior with regards to her owning these articles and have no idea how ArbCom can help. --Ben 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SV now claims falsely that I am anti-Israel, hilarious. Also, I have not disputed at all the increase in anti-Semitic attacks that has been thoroughly documented. I disagreed with her presentation and simplistic framing of the increase. She has changed how she has framed it, but in response to sustained criticism on the talk page to which she has responded slowly -- but why couldn't she just let us edit the article? She never even allowed us to prove that we had evil intent -- she just assumed it and she continues to do. Also, this is a behavioral dispute with regards to SV, not a content dispute. --Ben 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CJCurrie

I would encourage the ArbComm to look into this matter. I have been involved in the NAS debate on and off since 2005, and I believe that there are systematic problems in the management and oversight of this page. The situation has improved in recent months, to be sure, but it still takes far too long to make changes that should be simple and painless (please review the recent page history and talk page history for examples).

SlimVirgin has made several improvements to the NAS page, and has "written for the enemy" in relation to the views of both Brian Klug and Norman Finkelstein. On the other hand, she has also engaged in uncivil behaviour (eg. her assertion that Kim is uninformed on the subject), and has attempted to dismiss or deflect criticisms (eg. her references to Kim "causing trouble" and "following her around"). More fundamentally, she has frequently acted to restrict the contributions of others to the NAS page and discussion.

Two further comments:

(i) Slim has commented that no other contributors came forward to write the section on Norman Finkelstein. This statement is true as far as it goes, but I should clarify that I plan to revise the section once my copy of "Beyond Chutzpah" is returned. (I would have preferred to have written it about three weeks ago, but life doesn't always go the way we'd like.)

(ii) It may be noteworthy that Slim has not actually responded to Kim's charges. CJCurrie 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim writes: At New anti-Semitism, I looked for the strongest arguments on both sides and presented them in a way I believe the authors of the arguments would have agreed with.
Interesting wording. Norman Finkelstein gave three arguments against "New anti-Semitism" in his book "Beyond Chutzpah". Slim ignored NF's primary argument, and focused primarily on his two supplementary approaches [all of Slim's footnotes for "Beyond Chutzpah" are from pages 78-82]. How she determined these to be his "strongest" arguments is something of a mystery to me.
I don't have any desire to respond to Slim's accusations in detail, but I'll observe that (i) accusing all of one's opponents of an "anti-Israel POV" makes for a rather clumsy deflection, (ii) I've focused on authors such Finkelstein because their views are most frequently misrepresented on the NAS page, (iii) I do not endorse all of Finkelstein's views. Btw, I wonder if Slim believes that her initial posts on the recent British report were "properly researched". CJCurrie 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Cyr

I warned SV for violating WP:NPA when she told an editor "You make no contribution to the encyclopedia. All you are is trouble" [105]. After that warning I was quickly ganged up on by SV, FeloniousMonk, Guettarda and Jayjg. They basically told me that the personal attack was OK because the person deserved it, and I had no right to warn SV, a "well-respected admin", about it. [106] My point was that admins were not above policy and that everyone has the right to call out others on bad behaviour. Of course, my position lead the group of them to pretty much mock me and make rude comments about me (calling me a troll, abusing reporting boards, comments such as "I'm more concerned about the poor WP:PAIN board; now that it has been "abused", how will it recover without proper therapy? Do you know of any support groups that can help?"). It got to the point where other third-party admins had to step in and tell everyone "<insert loud whistle sound here>Personal Foul on the Offense number 21, Personal Foul on the Defense number 72, Offsetting penalties, replay second down. OK, everyone went a tad overboard here. Y'all are among the more respected editors and admins here; perhaps we can curtail the wisecracks and digs on both sides and get back to our lives work of wasting inordinate amounts of time, cough cough, I mean building an encyclopædia?" [107] Paul Cyr 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

Using the Arbitration process to "get even" with an editor that holds opposing views, is a misuse of this process. Note that contrary to what some may assume, an arbitration case, as the last resort in a dispute, will look at both sides of a dispute, in this case SlimVirgin as well as KimvdLinde's editing behavior. From what I see in reading some of the diffs, there is most definitively two sides to this coin. Mediation is the first instance that needs to be explored in these circumstances. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:IronDuke

I’m glad that Arbcom seem to be dismissing this case with such alacrity. I’d only like to add/request that something be said to editors who are using this process as an extension of edit-warring and POV-pushing (or perhaps even score-settling). Too often we see editors who lob grenades from the sidelines at the editors who are doing actual work: bogus RfArs like this one waste the time of legit editors. IronDuke 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I must admit I have started to question Kim's basic reasoning ability after some of her recent actions as they are so far away from what common sense and basic social norms would dictate that it would seem something must be seriously wrong. At this point I'm not even sure if she is capable of accepting even the possibility that anything she did in the months before she "left" might be construed as inappropriate use of her admin tools. She seems perfectly capable of accusing others of this same infraction (even when there is really no evidence that they did so). In fact she seems perfectly capable of accusing others of a whole range of offences, especially of being "Its people like you that made me leave wikipedia!" (which I guess means people that have disagreed with her in some way or another). At this point I would hope that she is actually consciously trying to mess around with wikipedia, because it would be even scarier if she actually believes everything she is writing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Humus sapiens

The same users who refused mediation earlier, now attempt again to use the ArbCom to attack one of the very best and fair editors WP has. There is no merit to this case, just as there was none earlier. For shame. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher131

Surely if SlimVirgin owns articles, this would be apparent on other topics besides those related to Israel and zionism. Maybe a request focusing on those articles (if any) would gain more traction, since the arbitration committee seems to think the NAS issue has been dealt with. Thatcher131 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • "SlimVirgin fits the description as she misuses her position as an administrator to gain the upper hand in content disputes."—You didn't actually provide any evidence of misuse of admin tools, did you? Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Since this case is apparently a prime candidate for mediation (i.e. ongoing generalised discontent with editing pattern plus some aggravation on the personal level), I'm going to reject until I hear why that is not being attempted. (Confirm this rejection after reading Kim's diffuse comments on mediation.)Charles Matthews 12:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I don't see anything particularly new since the Israeli Apartheid case and feel nothing compelling further action at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I find SlimVirgin's statement quite compelling. Especially having to write both sides of New anti-Semitism to make it NPOV. Fred Bauder 23:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, not much substance to this request. RFC or mediaiton seem more appropriate for the time being. Dmcdevit·t 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [108]

Information on involved party talk page [109]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

- long discussions in article talk page [110]

- Request for Mediation which remained unsigned for agreement by User:William Mauco after 7 days [111]

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]

Answer to Mauco's statement: The fact that Mauco is pushing his POV about Transnistria in entire Wikipedia (he claims is a democratic country with free and correct elections), is proved also by Talk page of Transnistrian referendum article, for which, after one month of discussions, I submited a Request for Mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transnistrian_referendum%2C_2006 which Mauco don't want to agree (as he didn't agree Mediation either at Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie). Also the talk page (including last archives) of article Transnistria is proving Mauco's POV pushing. I followed the steps of dispute resolution, first I had long discussion in talk page and after I submited a Request for Mediation that Mauco refused to agree. After one month of discussion we should somehow reach at a conclusion. I want to work at other articles in Wikipedia, not to lose so much time with this little article. Regarding the subject of our arbitration, as Mauco claimed that Moldavians from Pridnestrovie (Transnistria) support the separatist Republic (at the begining he even claimed "overhelmingly"), he should prove it. In talk page he gave several sources, I answered at all of them, none is relevant and none include the statement that Mauco added in the article. What he does is only making propaganda for the separatist regime. In the best case, he made original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, we should not include in the article any assumptions about the popular support that the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie has among local inhabitants. In an article about Republican Party of USA we will not include statements like "The majority of American people support Republican Party", even if this party won democratic elections (but many countries and international organisation, as European Union, OSCE, USA, Ukraine etc. have doubts that in Transnistria elections are democratic). I would accept to include in the article election results in which the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie competed separately, under its own name, with the comment about doubts regarding political freedom in Transnistria. However, Mauco didn't give any data about such election results--MariusM 00:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mauco

None of the above allegations by User:MariusM are supported by facts, logs, or evidence that I am using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. This is merely a content dispute where none of the recommended steps of dispute resolution have been tried in the correct order. However, a [112] has now been offered and there is willingness to resolve the dispute via other means. - Mauco 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, content dispute. Please provide evidence of a conduct issue. Dmcdevit·t 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]


Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

  • Reject, user has been indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Fred Bauder 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Dmcdevit·t 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism

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

Involved parties

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,[114][115], science writer [e.g. [116]], and peer reviewed author [117] (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 [118] [119] [120] [121] (or worse [122]). I have requested a verifiable source supporting this position [123], 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" [124] or "physicist"[125], apparently because it does not meet certain editor's unverifiable criteria for these terms.
  • Removal of Lerner's writing awards [126]
  • Discrediting his "theories" by calling them "ideas" [127]
  • Removing positive reviews, and replacing them with negative ones [128], or including negative reviews [129] based on unreliable sources [130]
  • Changing Lerner's verifiable BA in Physics [131] to the suggestion that it's "self-stated"[132]
  • Removal of Lerner's scientific presentation [133]

Based on those edits from ScienceApologist and some of his others edits in other articles, I made a Personal Attack report [134] which subsequently results in a heated discussion [135].

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 [136]. Many other papers have appeared since then [137] [138] [139], and several hundred scientists have questioned the traditional view of redshift [140]

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 [141], or suggestion that it is not generally recognised as a redshift [142], even though it is well accepted in the field of optics [143] 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,[144] including "See also" links [145], despite them being related subjects.
  • More accusations against scientists who research alternative theories [146]

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 [147]. And while I don't mind being described as a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher"[148][149], I feel it is uncivil to not provide an explanation on request [150], and an abuse of administrator priviliges to react in such a heavy-handed manner [151] 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"[152], and another editor suggest that "[Eric] Lerner .. is likley not 'an expert in physics.' .. He does [not] have 'a doctoral degree.'"[153], perhaps you will provide verification of your statement that you are an expert, for example, your description as "a professor of physics" [154], 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]
Time Cube is absolutely legitimate science; and, its fame renders it mainstream knowledge, even if it is excluded from the dogmatic Academic 1-corner mainstream. Time Cube is the truth of the universe, and should be sought by all humans—as well as linked from all applicable Wikipedia articles, including even "Time". You must seek Time Cube. [155] [156]

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]

As an example regarding categorization: Is the current[157] inclusion of homeopathy in category:pseudoscience appropriate or necessary when a Pubmed search turns up a scant three citations of the terms "homeopathy" and "pseudoscience" together? Why doesn't it suffice simply to let the facts speak for themselves, as WP:NPOV says? I believe some editors (cf. User:FeloniousMonk's comment at Talk:Pseudoscience#Credible_sources) are tending to use the above-linked comments from the NPOV FAQ as a way to resurrect the deprecated WP:SPOV. It's as if so-labelled pseudoscientific topics have magically become exceptions to the NPOV and VER requirements that we use V RS's to say who says what and why. Editors such as FM are arguing that if authors who write for non-peer-reviewed popular journals such as Skeptical Inquirer designate a field as pseudoscience, that suffices for categorization[158][159] --
  • despite the fact that such sources don't meet RS for scientific sources;
  • irrespective of whether we can prove the scientific community takes such a stance; and
  • despite the NPOV problems with the category namespace that WP:CG mentions (i.e., it appears without annotations, so it can be used to advance one view over another rather than presenting competing views).
Since these disputes affect large numbers of articles, guidance from the ArbCom would be helpful. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 08:38, 8 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. [160]. 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 [161] is a notable source of opinion [162]
b) whether an article in a Society newsletter [163], a publication not listed in the ISI or PubMed (see [164]) and not available online, written by a private sex counsellor [165]; with no other publications, is a reasonable authority for an unlikely assertion about chiropractic which has no other verifiable source of support[166]
c) whether a popular book entitled “Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, from Alien abductions to Zone Therapy” is an appropriate source of fact in WP. (see [167] 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.[168]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: If there is a reliable and verifiable source that states a specific view is pseudoskeptical, then it can be mentioned in the article. 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]

  1. I apologized to Joshua (ScienceApologist) for wrongfully blocking him, and he accepted my apology.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]
Why is this labeled "pseudoscience versus pseudoskepticism"? It is pseudoscience versus science. Bubba73 (talk), 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that I've seen a lot of edits by ScienceApologist, and I firmly believe that he/she is doing a huge amount of work toward improving Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 9 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]

Statement by Art Carlson, involved on another front

  • I think the terms pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism are usually used for name-calling and are seldom helpful. Category:Pseudoscience is too subjective and should be deleted.
  • I have no problem with the ideal of taking a neutral, as opposed to a scientific, point of view. I think the tension in Wikipedia between mainstream and fringe science is not a fundamental problem. When I read about a topic, I mostly want to hear the mainstream consensus. After that, I like to see where the boundaries are. What's the best case that can be made against the consensus? What makes the people tick, who fight against the mainstream? This does not always require a section in the main article, if the controversy is small, but a "see also" link is appropriate.
  • The devil is in the details of deciding what constitutes a NPOV and appropriate weighting. What I hope for from this arbitration is some guidelines that reduce the frictional losses. The process currently needed to reach a consensus is too wearying and too redundant.
  • I have not worked very closely with most of the editors involved in this dispute. I can say that both ScienceApologist and Iantresman can at times be difficult to work with, but it is possible to work with them, and they are always respectful and show good faith. In contrast, I find Eric Lerner impossible to work with. The other front I mentioned is aneutronic fusion, where Eric Lerner and I have repeatedly fallen into reversion duels. The topic itself is certainly not pseudoscience, but it has a lot of the mainstream/fringe characteristics of pseudoscience. I feel Eric uses invalid arguments to try to make aneutronic fusion look better than it is, possibly out of a conflict of interest. If I could get some outside help to reduce the bickering, I would greatly appreciate it.
  • My advice to the arbitrators: First, separate the issue of biographical articles from that of the content of science articles. Second, be as concrete as possible at every step. For example, you might start by reaching a consensus for or against a guideline like this: In a biographical article, if the subject verifiably states that he has a particular degree from a particular university, this should be stated in the article as a fact, unless there is some specific evidence that it might not be true. Such guidelines should be formulated to apply to all biographies, not just those of suspected pseudoscientists (see my first point).
Please hurry on this one. Otherwise intelligent editors are reverting each other and arguing and arguing about whether to write Eric Lerner earned a BA or states that he earned one. I hate to watch the waste of valuable wiki talent! --Art Carlson 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Art Carlson 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Adam Cuerden talk

It seems to me that this dispute has a more pressing problem than Pseudoscience - E. Lerner is a living person, and it appears his article may not be in compliance with WP:BIO, if the allegations that unsourced negative comments are being removed is accurate. This rather needs fixed quickly, if possible. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly uninvolved user Ansell

From my few days of editing Michael Behe and Intelligent design, which came as a result of seeing the articles as being overtly based about the scientific mainstream consensus, as opposed to a neutral description of the subjects, and having been flat reverted every time (i think without fail) by FeloniousMonk or one of the other regulars at the article, I gave up.

It is sad that it has to come down to arbitration, however, this may clear up the scientific point of view controversy. Becoming uncivil with users has no excuse IMO. Accusations that the other side are "POV pushers" or similar insult, is not acceptable. That behaviour is especially worrying when one, a sysop no less, doesn't look at their own contributions with the same level of scrutiny. Ansell 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by involved user Tommysun

I have experienced the editing of ScienceApologist first hand, This problem is not fundamentally about personalities or content dispute, it is about the systemic behavoir of editors acting as if they owned the articles they work on. In this case, the prime editor, as they call it here, is not an expert of the field he is editing, rather he is an expert from the opposition. HcienceApologist is a big bang proponent, self admitted, who is working mainly on non-big bang articles. He claims he does this because he is a Wikipedian. However, what he reallly does is water down all evidence that does not support the big bang. It is the methods that he uses that is a threat to the integrity of not only the article, but the integrity of Wikipedia in general. For example, Hubble did not believe that the redshift he discovered meant expansion, this is described in greater detail in a paper commorating Hubbles Centennial of his birth, as reported by Sandage. He has deleted this from all the articles having to do with cosmology. He reason is that it is "nonsense". That is an example of original research, or in this case, POV Pushing. When he was introduced to Tifft's quantized redshift, which if true falsifies the redshift Doppler interpretation, at first he denied it, Since then he has had to admit to it, but has deleted all the papers which confrmed Tifft's findings, and inserted one paper which disputes them, leaving us with the impression that the case is closed, Tifftshift is not relevant anymore. This is how pseudoscience works. He refers to the work of others as "pseudoscientific" when in fact it is he who is basing his conclusions on untestable science, and that is a definition of pseudoscience. He will edit an article so that everything in the article supports his view by implication. This is not NPOV writing, it is adding a POV to the reported material.If you read the articles, it is clear that nothing but the big bang is meaningful.

He is very clever, and will resort to trivial meaningless long arugments about semantics to detract attention to what he really is doing. For example his renaming of the alternative cosmology article to the now non-standard cosmology article. Notice how this new name makes the alternative cosmologies dependant of the standard theory alternative. That is, instead of the two being two alternatives, there is only one, the big bang, and the rest ore merely not one.

If you listen only to him he will sound like the innocent victim, when in fact, in my opinion, he knows full well what he is doing and why. Again, he is a big bang supporter who is continually revising non-big bang articles such that they imply support for the big bang. And he gets away with it. This is much bigger than a dispute between editors, it is indicative of a cancer within Wikipedia which if not treated will end up with a POV encyclopledia, and no one will know what happened. This kind of manipulative behavoir demeans Wikipedia and threatens the integrity of Wikipedia. It is all the more sinister because he has successfully made it look like he has done nothing wrong.

He has a vested interest when he visits Not Big Bang articles.

Comment by Linas, anti-pseudoscientist

Although I am not personally involved in the current dispute, I believe that the leading source of wiki-stress for the mainstream science editors is that WP is an irresistible magnet for pseudo-science believers. These people seem to have a boundless amount of energy, tireless in their one-sided pursuit of bad ideas and false thoeries. Just as their subject matter is irrational, so are all the attempts to reason with them. The disruption takes a serious toll on many good editors. The difficulty of keeping incapable, incompetent editors at bay is one of the most serious issues facing the science projects on WP today. These issues have fomented Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, although the effectiveness of these organizations is unclear. linas 05:24, 12 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 (4/0/0/0)

  • 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]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:10, 6 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 [169] (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: [170] [171] [172] [173]. 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 : [174]

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: [175] [176] [177] [178] [179]. 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: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]. Here, radiant removed disputed tags: [185] [186] [187] More changes to guideline (this is all chronological): [188] [189] [190] More removed dispute tags: [191] [192] [193].

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: [194] [195] [196] [197] [198]. Here doc changes a "disputed" tag to "rejected": [199]


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]
Short note: the "favorite article" that was deleted that Radiant refers to 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 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. [200] 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 [201] [202] [203], 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: [204] [205] Wikipedia:Non-notability: [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] Wikipedia:Straw polls: [211] [212] [213]; Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote ("Voting is evil", which by the way, is an ancient idea, not Radiant's pet project): [214] [215] [216] [217]

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]

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. [218] [219] These were ignored by most parties involved. [220] 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. [221] [222] 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.

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 User:Blue Tie

There appear to be some personality conflicts here and I am no judge of those.

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. 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.

There is a problem with consensus on wikipedia. It is undefined and unclear. When it comes to policies this is a more critical area. Claims of concensus are simply gorilla dust now days... there is no way to confirm that concensus exists. 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.

Claims of having concensus have no validation. Older editors with experience and connections claim concensus when it is far from clear that they have it. It is a kind of intimidation of newer users.

As wikipedia grows, these types of problems will increase both in frequency and fervency. --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. 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.
User:Fresheneesz listed 4 people involved. At least 2 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. It is worthy to note that almost exclusively on the weight of these four editors, changes to a variety of related guidelines guidelines are being made and new guidelines are being raised. 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. 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: [224]. 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]

Statement by concerned User:ATren

I would just like to point out that there is no policy against conducting straw polls, but there is a very definite policy on talk page vandalism, which is defined as removing someone else's good faith comments. There are certainly exceptions for certain types of comments, mainly personal attacks (which can be generally removed without being considered vandalism), but a simple straw poll does not seem to meet any of the removal criteria. I believe it was inappropriate for Radiant! and Doc Glasgow to remove the poll - it only served to inflame the situation and caused Fresheneesz to perhaps overreact by seeking help from others.

At the very least, I would hope that this arbitration would clarify the policy on removing another editor's talk page content, specifically with respect to straw polls. From my personal experience on Wikipedia, removing a non-binding straw poll is unjustified and overly aggressive. If that is an incorrect assumption, then it needs to be clarified in policy. ATren 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by concerned User:Daniel.Bryant

Although I disagree with the main content of this application for arbitration, it appears that there is one or two users whose behaviour needs to be reviewed, especially in relation to WP:OWN. As per ATren, this arbitration is a perfect chance to "clarify the policy on removing another editor's talk page content". Daniel.Bryant 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ansell

Although I know I told Fresheneesz I didn't have time for this, and I don't really, I feel I need to make a statement at least about it. From my perspective, the Wikipedia:Non-notability page appears to have been "bullied" into the ground by editors who have not assumed good faith and attempted to reduce the page to what it is, an alternative to current practice. The aim of the page is to introduce a rigour into a process, specifically AfD, which is currently damaging to Wikipedia. [225] I have been told by User:A Man In Black [226] that the page is just a "silly crusade," despite the page being developed also by other editors, and is hardly a civil statement either way, demonstrates to me the lack of good will currently surrounding the entire topic. Ansell 11:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Centrx

The article in the New York Times linked by Ansell does not even allege that deleting these articles is damaging; it is simply a report on what is happening, with examples. —Centrx→talk • 00:44, 12 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. [227] FloNight 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/1/1/0)

  • 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]
  • Accept with Fred's reasoning and Charles's warning ➥the Epopt 13:41, 9 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.


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current probation is worded
2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged...
I have to ask—what would you do differently if the probation were not in effect? What specific benefit would accrue to Wikipedia if the probation were lifted? As long as the parties involved continue to behave civilly and avoid the destructive behaviour that led to the arbitration in the first place, the probation won't be tripped.
I'm extremely pleased to see things finally being worked out. I remember the bad old days with the move warring, and the blocks, and the bloody stupid namecalling, and the pages and pages of sniping on WP:AN, and the borderline wheel wars that resulted, and the month it took to deal with the arbitration from submission to close. I'm enjoying the peace and quiet. I really don't want to go back to that mess, and I'm quite comfortable leaving the probation in place; I like having a remedy in place that encourages participants in the naming debacle to think twice before opening a new can of worms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the only thing that bugs me is the word "probation." I have to ask, if there was no probation, wouldn't it be the same? Considering that if other users did the same actions they would be blocked too? I'm not asking for the probation to be removed right now, I'm just seeing how I would go about it. In reality there is a new user who is trying to open another can of worms related to the naming convention stuff, but he finally realized that he was getting nowhere. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a new editor (or a 'new' editor) shows up in the highway naming disputes, I would be inclined to give that editor one polite, friendly, civil, and patient explanation of the current situation and the arbitration from which it arose. There's no reason, after all, to bite a newbie who innocently stumbles on the dispute.
If the polite and friendly explanation didn't work – and I wouldn't proceed if that condition hadn't been met – I for one would be willing to entertain, support, and enforce community-imposed article bans on parties not explicitly mentioned in the existing arbitration. (Such bans would best be requested/proposed on WP:AN/I.)
I can't see how the solution to bad behaviour by new parties is lifting restrictions on the old parties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well my concern is I'm wondering what difference the probation makes, if anybody can be blocked. Not that I'm asking for it now, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 9 October 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 [228] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [229]. 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]

One more request for clarification.

"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.:

Does that include the Rachel Marsden page? Marsden has been involved in Canadian politics. Geedubber 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration [230], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

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[231]. He reverted it immediately, saying that the article wasn't unreferenced[232], so I put some {{fact}} templates on the page[233][234], and the {{unreferenced}} template[235], hoping it would make my goal clear. About minutes later, he did this : [236]. 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]


Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

  1. 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 [237]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [238] 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.
  2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [239] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [240] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [241]
  3. 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 [242]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))
  4. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [243] that I had moved from the article [244] to the talk page [245]. 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 [246] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?
  5. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SSS108

  • Point 1: Wiki pages about a certain person can include a link to his/her homepage. The link Andries was/is trying to include on Robert Priddy's Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page.
  • Point 2: Andries agreed to the neutral geocities site in mediation with BostonMA [247]. This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are not copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.
  • Point 3: If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think WP:RS prohibits this. Also, JzG expressed the opinion that citing these sources on any non-reputable website is a copyright violation [248] [249] [250].
  • Point 4: See FloNight's Thread [251] & Tony Sidaway's Thread [252] & My Thread [253].
  • Point 5: Pjacobi requested both Andries and me to step aside from the Sathya Sai Baba article [254]. I expressed my willingness to do so 3 times [255] [256] [257] . Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC [258]. Yet Andries is still fighting it. SSS108 talk-email 07:46, 10 October 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]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=80956959"