Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Current requests

Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone

Initiated by Rhythmnation2004 (talk) at 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (This user is no longer involved)[reply]

Involved parties

  1. Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Anakinjmt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Richard_Rundle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

Statement by Rhythmnation2004

Currently, Wikipedia lists this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The rationale behind this title has been that because the film was released outside the U.S. under this title, and that it is based on a British novel, that the article's title should reflect the title of the British film and book. There have been ongoing conflicts regarding this issue and there is currently no consensus. The naming conventions state that when naming an article of this nature, users are to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers". This film was released in the United States (population 300 million) as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The film was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (combined population approx. 100 million). Therefore, there are nearly 300 million English readers who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and only about 100 million who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, there should be no argument: the title of the article at the present time direclty conflicts with Wikipedia policy, and should be redirected immediately to the correct title. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. As a side note, an example of this type of move can be seen through the redirection of "Check (finance) to the British spelling of Cheque, to avoid the use of an unneeded parenthetical suffix. See that article's talk page for more explanation. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal withdrawal from issue

Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reginmund

OK, I've skimmed the previous hectic RfC and I'll summarise all of the opposing points here and now.

  • WP:NC(F) doesn't give guidelines on how to name an Anglophone film that is released in other Anglophone countries with a different title, so the best decision would be to name the film based on its nationality. Now, in determining the nationality of a film, the studio of production and/or production company is always used. If it is a co-production of studios, the film is credited by all countries involved and if only one should be specified, usually the company that contributed the most is represented. Although we need not worry about this conflict as WB was the majority contributor and the only studio involved in production.
  • Now the defence against keeping the films are as follows:
British setting.
This one appears to come often in a package deal. However, a double standard is set here. There are myriads of films that are set in foreign countries. I'll include one of my previous examples. Night and the City was set and filmed on location in the United Kingdom. However, the production company was 20th Century Fox so the film is American.
British author.
Now this one just exemplifies ignorance. The topic at hand is the film and not the book. There is a perfectly good article on the book which should undoubtedly stay where it is. However, the film was actually written by an American.
British book.
As I said, the topic is the film and not the book. But I'll give another example anyway. Wuthering Heights is based on an undeniably British book but the film is American.
British cast.
This one is just a counterpart of the previous three but I'll concur. The Third Man has a primarily American cast but the film is British.
British crew. Yet another irrelevant defence. The Grudge has a Japanese crew, probably for the sake of convenience since it was filmed in Japan. Yet, the film is American and is considered American even by Wikipedia. In fact, Night and the City is considered American by Wikipedia, Wuthering Heights is considered American by Wikipedia, and The Third Man is considered British by Wikipedia. So to title this film Philosopher's Stone on Wikipedia would just be setting a double standard. I smell bias...
  • Despite the discussion being ostensibly long, these arguments are really just repeated over and over. I hope here that there will be those who read the discussion before repeating an argument gone over for the umpteenth time. And just throwing this in, the British Film Institute has a preference of referring to films by their names in their countries of production. They appear to agree with me.[1] Reginmund (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that many editors opposing the move have expressed disdain for the title being changed by Scholastic, thus resulting in the awkward film title. However, WP:NCON states that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Indeed the name should be Philosopher's Stone for the film but unfortunately it is Sorcerer's Stone. If Wikipedia would actually change history, I would recommend deleting the article on World War II. Reginmund (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anakinjmt

Okay, honestly, I appreciate the effort, but WikiProject Harry Potter CLEARLY states (and I quote): "Rowling's first book was published in one foreign country under the name Sorcerer's Stone, giving Sorcerer's Stone the same status as the French or German translations ("Harry Potter a l'ecole des sorciers"[1] and "Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen"[2] respectively). Rowling has stated[3] that she regrets allowing the name to be changed. All articles within the scope of the Harry Potter WikiProject should therefore use the title Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in every instance after the first, noting the alternate tile at the first instance of mention, ie., high-traffic pages warrant the following statement: "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (published as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US)..." at the first instance on a page. After that, only refer to the original title." Therefore, under these guidelines, I believe that the film should remain where it is. It is only SS in the US. EVERYWHERE else it is UK, and if Rowling could do it all over again, she would insist on PS. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard_Rundle

Statement by uninvolved user:Flyguy649

This appears to be a content dispute, so I suggest rejection. As for the name, Philosopher's Stone is the original name and the name in most of the world. To have it as Sorcerer's Stone wouldn't be correct. -- Flyguy649 talk 02:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define as "most of the world"? Clearly as shown above, there are far more English-speakers who recognize "Sorcerer's Stone" as the title. So your statement is quite blatantly ignorant. Furthermore, this is not a content dispute. This is a final resort to solve this issue once and for all, after a failed RfC and mediation. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sorta involved User:Metros

I agree completely with Flyguy649. This is nothing more than a content dispute and forum shopping. Metros (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I am bothered by Rhythmnation2004's insistence on adding comments to my section like this, changing the section header like this, and again restoring the comments. These comments belong else where. As someone who commented in the RFC, I do believe that I have a right to post statements in this case. Metros (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to comment by User:Metros

Restoration of a comment removed by Metros twice for illegitimate reasons: Objection to Metros' comment. Metros is infamous for stalking my edits and arguing against all of them. His bias and prejudice towards me is clearly documented and therefore he should be prohibited from adding any comments to this issue. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Naming convention disputes should never get as far as the arbitration committee, in my opinion. As long as the article states both names clearly up front, and the appropriate redirects are in place, there should be no problem which title the article is at. Some of the more epic naming disputes are at WP:LAME for good reason. The most infamous one was the Gdansk/Danzig one, that, if I recall correctly, resulted in a huge poll. On a more general point, have any arbitration cases been about behaviour of editors over the name of an article? Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject, content dispute. Kirill 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is a pure content dispute and there is no showing of user-conduct problems by other editing that would be amenable to arbitration. In response to the filing party's complaint (now removed from this section) about how arbitration works, I am constrained to suggest that his only previous experience with a request for arbitration, which was based on a forged photograph of a swimming pool on the roof of a school building and blatantly false allegations that he made as part of a seeming practical joke (see e.g. [2]), does not inspire confidence in his concern for the efficiency of the arbitration process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) In response to Carcharoth, I recall cases about naming conventions for groups of articles, but not one about the name of an individual article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Obvious content dispute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webby Awards

Initiated by Dario D. (talk) at 04:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemo#complaint_filed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dario_D.&oldid=184224207

The Issue

The issue is dead simple: I (Dario D.) am accusing the user "Wikidemo" of repeatedly deleting the "Criticisms" section of the article entitled Webby Awards. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webby_Awards )

The section is well-cited, truthful and accurate, but this user (who edits this article a HUGE deal) insists on repeatedly deleting the section without presenting a valid reason why (just calls it "inappropriate" and that's it), then sends me messages accusing me of not following Wikipedia guidelines for doing the same thing he/she is doing: repeatedly reverting edits.

That's the complaint. This is an important section to NOT be deleting, especially with the Webby Awards about to take place, and very important information in it (notably scambusters.com accusation against them, which carries great impact, and should be known by all with great emphasis. In fact, it's a shame it has to be mentioned way down in the criticisms section).

Complaint against the complaint process

This complaint process is utter lunacy (aka rocket science, designed by wiki programmers, for wiki programmers). It took me over 20 minutes just to figure out how the heck to file a complaint, and I'm a software designer. There are like 5 layers of pages and an encyclopedia worth of reading to do before you actually get to this step where you can... you know... actually file a complaint. I suggest getting a crap-load more moderators who can deal with complaints, because Wikipedia is an extremely important resource for the world, and it needs to be about 5,000% easier to file a complaint... as I'm sure there are a motherload of important edit wars out there that aren't addressed because of this absurdly arcane process.

Comment from uninvolved party. I 100% agree with the above statement. The current "Dispute resolution" process is designed to allow as little actual dispute resolution as possible. The ordinary editor can not easily file a complaint, nor do they have the time to read the complicated procedures and policies, allowing administrators to unjustifiably rule over Wikipedia. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemo

Obviously the case should be dismissed as a content dispute and for failure to follow procedure - it doesn't appear the complainant has ever even read the article talk page, where I try to explain why the edits are inappropriate for being unsourced, POV, original research, personal attacks, etc. Most of this is so obvious on the face it needs no explanation.

I am a little concerned that arming this user with better knowledge of dispute resolution procedures may not be the way to go. The edits are POV, and seem to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The editor's behavior has been strange and contentious. For example the user makes accusations and personal attacks to me, both in the edit summaries and article content (and now, on this page). When I call him on making personal attacks he makes a tit-for-tat accusation. He makes the bizarre connection that I must be a "member" of the Webbies (and some kind of paranoid claim in the article itself, probably made up, that my IP has been traced to a location near the Webby headquarters), based on the untrue (and also bizarre) claim that I wrote most of the article.

Even giving extra allowance for common newbie mistakes, this is beyond normal. Please consider the possibility that we may not be dealing with a straight shooter here and that this person is being a behavior problem, not just a misguided content editor. Indeed, the editor's comment below (here, in case it is deleted) seems to say that his point in editing the article is to warn "hordes of people" in advance of this year's awards that the organization is a scam.

  • Can we please block this user?. In the past few minutes they have reverted the content yet again[3] (fourth time or so, fourth warning). His response to my warning on his talk page was some uncivil taunting[4] that seems to make clear he would rather edit war than discuss anything or learn our rules. Ordinarily I would revert again then take it to AN/I but I would rather not create a process fork. I would hope that a 24 hour block with a warning to calm down could restore some sanity to this and avoid it getting even more out of hand. Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Dario D.

Arbitrators, my plight is deathly simple: read the Criticisms section that Wikidemo has been deleting, and see if you yourselves find even one point in it invalid. Simply dismissing this as a content dispute essentially means that Wikidemo wins: he/she will simply continue deleting that Criticism section onwards for eternity, and the Webby Awards scam will march on. You can do your own research on it - ANYTHING... and if you find that my argument for keeping the Criticism section is invalid by even ONE WORD, then you can ban ME and my entire city for all I care.

My story is this: I receive a flier from the Webby Awards in the mail one day, do some online research, find all kinds of sources talking crap about them, and so I post a few of those criticisms on Wikipedia (and several criticisms were already there). Next thing I know, the ENTIRE SECTION is deleted. So I put it back. AGAIN it's deleted. And the rest is history... now I'm just trying to get Wikidemo to stop deleting that section. You'll notice that he/she has never stated a single valid reason anywhere why those criticisms are not valid for inclusion in the article. They are fairly-cited criticisms like any other, and if you don't think so, ban me to pixel hell. That's how confident I am.

  • My motives for keeping the Criticisms section: Making sure people understand that many websites (such as scambusters.org) have complained that the Webby Awards are a Who's Who scam that requires between $100-$400 for inclusion in the contest. In other words, they are widely criticized for being unfair in their judging, because you have to pay to even have a chance at winning. Obviously, you would mention criticisms like that in a criticisms section.
  • Wikidemo's motives for removing Criticisms section: I have no idea.

Clerk notes

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

  • Reject, content dispute. Kirill 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, but we should provide some guidance to the filing party, who appears to be a bit uncertain as to how to deal with the dispute that has arisen, rather than just announce that we are not going to take the case. As indicated on the top of this page, arbitration is the last step of the dispute resolution process. It is generally reserved for prolonged and intractible disputes, involving alleged violation by users of our site policies rather than just a disagreement on what content should be included in the article—hence the complexity of the process of which you remark (though I would have no objection at all to simplifying the arbitration process so long as this could be done without compromising its fairness). In this case, other steps in dispute resolution such as requesting a third opinion, posting an article-content request for content, or if necessary seeking mediation will be more effective than a complicated arbitration case at resolving this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, content dispute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Arbitrators' opinion

  • (by Dario D.) I feel helpless, then. What do you want me to do to get this user (who is obviously not going to give up, since he/she is clearly a member of the Webby Awards, having authored almost the entire article, and patrols it day and night) to quit? Am I supposed to dedicate my life to this article, just to keep an eye on this user, and stop him from deleting the Criticisms? The Webby Awards will be past by the time I can get through negotiations, and I simply don't have time to hound this issue (though it is very important for the hordes of people who are dumping their money into their scam). - PS: A moderator mentioned in my User Talk that arbitration is not a complaints desk (???), and that I essentially have to work my tail off if I want this resolved. As if the process hasn't already been a freaking nightmare (as mentioned in my above "complaint against the complaints process"). This may be easy for you who do this all day long, but you need to understand that ordinary people find this beyond tedious, and needing all the help they can get.

Note 1: I brought up the issue at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Webby_Awards

Note 2: The user Wikidemo has given me 4 phony "warnings" so far on my talk page. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dario_D.

Ehud Lesar

Initiated by Grandmaster (talk) at 07:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive11#User:Ehud_Lesar

Statement by Grandmaster

I realize that arbitrators are really tired of endless disputes at Armenia – Azerbaijan related area, and that recently a request for another Armenia – Azerbaijan case has been rejected. I was the one who opposed the new case, and I believe that it was a right decision. However this case should not be treated as another Armenia – Azerbaijan case, involving every user who contributes to that topic. This is a case about the block of a particular user and circumstances surrounding it. So it should be considered outside of general A-A framework and cover only the users involved in this particular situation.

This issue has started when User:Fedayee, User:Eupator and some others started a campaign of harassment of User:Ehud Lesar, accusing him of being a sock of User:AdilBaguirov, who was banned for 1 year by AA1. They were making accusations without any reliable evidence confirming that the 2 users were somehow related. Checkuser showed no relation between Ehud and Adil: [12] [13] However this did not stop the aforementioned users from making accusations and baiting Ehud. Just some examples:

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Finally the sock allegations were discussed at WP:AE and rejected [19] with the statement: No confirmation of sockpuppetry. At the same time Ehud was placed on 6 months rv parole like most of other users on the topic. Fedayee and his supporters were told to present their evidence for formal investigation to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. However, this never happened. I can assume that instead they sought other ways. On 9 January 2008 the admin User:Khoikhoi, who was absent from Wikipedia for a few months (since October 2007, to be precise), suddenly turned up and banned Ehud. I can only presume that this admin was approached off wiki and given certain information about Ehud. Otherwise it is hard to explain why a user who was absent from wikipedia for months would turn up with the single purpose of banning one user. I might be wrong, but this looks very strange. Ehud asked to be unblocked, and his request for unblock was granted by User:LaraLove. However Ehud was soon reblocked after the discussion at Lara’s page by User:Nishkid64, despite User:LaraLove refusing to support this block. [20] Ehud contacted me soon after he was blocked and asked for help with this case, and I took the issue to WP:ANI. [21] A lengthy discussion at WP:ANI gave no results. Ehud was willing to prove that he was a real person in real life and not a sock by various methods, including phone call, webcam chat, etc, but Nishkid64 and the group of users who supported him did not agree to any of his proposals. Nishkid64 asked for a scan of Ehud’s ID with all the info other than picture and name blacked out, but Ehud was reluctant to share any sensitive private info with admins who blocked him. He was willing to prove his identity by any means that would not violate his privacy, or share it with one of the top bureaucrats of wikipedia, who would guarantee his privacy. But even this sort of identification was not considered a sufficient prove by his accusers, who insisted that this user should remain blocked despite the lack of any prove that he was a sock. So we have a very strange situation when a user was blocked after allegations about him were rejected at WP:AE by an admin, who was away from wiki for many months, then unblocked and reblocked again. Clearly there was no consensus in the wiki community that this user was a sock, and there was no evidence to support the allegations of sockpuppetry, as cu returned negative results. While it’s never been proven that Ehud was a sock, Nishkid64 demands that Ehud needs to prove that he is not sock. I don’t understand what happened to presumption of innocence and “innocent until proven guilty” principle. The only basis for Ehud’s block was this collection of frivolous evidence complied by Fedayee, and which I addressed here. It was also addressed in much detail at WP:ANI thread, but did not result in any change of the attitude of the blocking admins. It is very strange that no attempt at any investigation has ever been made and there were no attempts at seeking consensus at WP:ANI or any other board before making such a block. So I would like to ask the arbitration committee to review all the circumstances surrounding this block, and take measures for verification of identity of Ehud, who is willing to cooperate. Also, it might be in the interest of the entire wiki community to establish some sort of a procedure for users who were blocked as result of sockpuppetry allegations to contest their block and prove their real life identity without violation of their privacy. I made inquires with many people, but it seems that no one is aware of any established procedure for such situations. Thank you very much.

In response to Thatcher. The problem is that all users representing either Azerbaijani or Armenian side are interested in the same topic and have the same POV, depending on what side of the story they represent. If users are to be banned for sharing the same views, then not many would remain. There should be some procedure for verification if the user is genuine or not. Otherwise innocent people will keep on getting banned just because they happen to share the same views or making edits that may remotely resemble those made by other users.

Additional comment

I agree with Atabek. The evidence presented by Fedayee, which resulted in Ehud’s block, is very frivolous. Atabek mentioned some points, but here’s more. Fedayee says in his evidence:

If we search on talkpages, we find that only Adil has ever called Sevan, Geycha.

But if one takes a look at Talk:Lake Sevan, he can see that the name of Geycha was used there since 2005, long before Adil joined Wikipedia. Moreover, if we check the history of the article about the lake, we’ll see that the one reverting to Adil’s version and sharing the same views with him about the historical names of the lake was none other than Khoikhoi, the blocking admin: [22] Please see the edit summary in the diff. So it was not just Ehud sharing the same views with Adil on certain subjects. If people are blocked on the basis of such evidence, then we have serious problems here. I posted more counterevidence here: User:Grandmaster/Ehud

Response to Nishkid64

Nishkid64, you said that "it appears that Grandmaster and Atabek have now hinted that Ehud Lesar's real name is not "Ehud Lesar", as he had claimed many times before on-wiki and through e-mail". Please tell us where exactly did Ehud say that he contributed under his real name? That's what you have just been claiming in you previous post.

As for Geycha, I have already demonstrated that unlike what you say in your response to 5a, Adil was not "the first person on Wikipedia to make that point". See Talk:Lake Sevan. I understand that you only had good intentions, but I think the admins should not blindly trust any evidence presented to them, but do some investigation of their own.

Nishkid64, you said that "I asked Ehud Lesar to confirm that his real name was "Ehud Lesar". He never made any indication that Ehud Lesar was not in fact his real name". But he never told you that Ehud was his real name either, right? Then why did you say that Ehud claimed that he contributed under his real name "many times before on-wiki and through e-mail". Now it turns out that not only he did not claim so "many times", in fact, he did not claim so even once. I don't know if Ehud is his real name or not, but it might as well be a made up name. I'm not Grandmaster in real life too. People have a right to chose any names for themselves, as long as they don't violate wiki policies. But how does his wiki name prove that he is a sock, and what difference does it make?

It appears that you and Atabek were defending the name, "Ehud Lesar", but then later did a 180 and suggested that it wasn't his name.

That's not right. I was never defending the name, I was defending the user and was trying to bring to your attention that he was a real person in real life, regardless of whether he contributed under his real or made up name.

Fedayee

That Geycha thing is a total fabrication. The claim that only Adil and Ehud spelled the old name of the lake as Geycha is false and can be easily disproved. Adil joined Wikipedia on13 May 2006. However back on 18 February 2006 the admin User:Beland stated on the talk of Sevan:

I added the rendering "Geycha" because someone used it in the article Siunik. -- Beland 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC) [23][reply]

And the name of Geycha (spelled exactly like this) was added to the article about Siunik back in October 2004. [24]

Ok, how come then that this spelling is exclusively Adil’s, if it was spelled that way long before he joined wiki, and that’s the way the name is spelled in Azerbaijani language? I find it strange that Nishkid64 blindly trusts whatever claims Fedayee makes without taking the time to check them.

Statement by Nishkid64

I first saw Fedayee's evidence at WP:AE. He was convinced that Ehud Lesar was AdilBaguirov, an editor banned by ArbCom until August 2008. I evaluated the evidence, and sought the opinions of others. I also contacted Jayvdb (talk · contribs) on IRC and asked him for his thoughts. I don't remember what he said exactly, but I'm sure that he didn't give a clearcut opinion of the evidence. Based on the evidence, I was convinced that this user was a sockpuppet of Adil. I was a bit hesitant of the block, and I wanted to contact Khoikhoi (talk · contribs), an administrator who's quite knowledgeable of the Armenia-Azerbaijan debate, and seek his opinion about the evidence. I didn't get to contact Khoikhoi, but I saw that he echoed my thoughts and he blocked the user indefinitely. Per Dmcdevit's comments here, he had evaluated the evidence and decided to take administrative action. LaraLove (talk · contribs) unblocked the user on the basis that there was no evidence for sockpuppetry. I did not want to be accused of wheel warring, so I contacted her and asked her if she was okay with me reblocking the user. She didn't think there was any evidence for the block, and I should do what I believe is best. As a result, I reblocked Ehud. Subsequently, Grandmaster initiated an AN/I discussion. An agreement (I don't see how one could be reached in this situation; one side wants a block, the other wants an unblock) could not be reached.

A few points of clarification:

  • Francis Tyers (talk · contribs) first suggested that Ehud was a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Khoikhoi, Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs), Daniel Case (talk · contribs) (who reviewed the unblock) and I have all found the evidence of sockpuppetry quite damning and indefblock-worthy.
  • The issue over identity confirmation was first brought up by Ehud Lesar in an e-mail he sent to me shortly after I re-blocked his account. Since I contested that he was indeed Adil Baguirov, a real-life Azeri energy lobbyist, I figured that an identity confirmation would prove his innocence.
  • Grandmaster and Ehud Lesar proposed some methods of confirming Ehud's identity. These methods could easily be faked, so I asked for other ideas. I was then asked what I thought would provide definitive confirmation. I suggested scanning his passport with the sensitive details blanked. It was only a suggestion, and I said Ehud was free to refuse to participate in such an action. On Google Talk, Ehud stated that he would not provide such identity, but after some convincing, I informed him (LaraLove had previously mentioned this) that he could contact Cary Bass or someone else through WP:OFFICE.
  • No admin "rejected" the allegations at WP:AE. Most of the discussion on hand took place before Fedayee created his user subpage filled with Ehud-AdilBaguirov evidence. Picaroon made a comment, stating he was a bit confused about the deal over Geycha (see the evidence for clarification). Jayvdb did not comment on the merits of the case, but it appears he did read it, as he asked for some point of clarification and said he would look into the matter on User talk:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov Evidence. Thatcher closed the AE discussion as "no confirmation of sockpuppetry", but he did place Ehud on revert parole. Judging from the timestamps of Thatcher's edits, I do not think he read the evidence, but I have no messaged Thatcher and asked him whether or not he actually got a chance to look over the material.
  • In the latter half of the discussion, it appears that Grandmaster and Atabek have now hinted that Ehud Lesar's real name is not "Ehud Lesar", as he had claimed many times before on-wiki and through e-mail.
Reply to Atabek from Nishkid64

1) Again, CheckUser does not confirm everything. There have been hundreds of cases on Wikipedia where sockpuppeteers easily mask their IP, thus producing unfounded CheckUser results.

2) WP:PRIVACY is a proposed policy. It just advises users that they shouldn't post such material on Wikipedia. I told Ehud Lesar that he could reject my suggestion.

3) I asked him if he could prove that he was indeed "Ehud Lesar". He never indicated that he wasn't this user. Even when I told him about the passport bit, he never said that he wasn't actually "Ehud Lesar".

4) I don't see how WP:PRIVACY is involved here.

5a) Adil was the first person on Wikipedia to make that point. Ehud Lesar made that exact same point, and given how it's not some universal view, it looks quite suspicious.

5b) Settle that matter elsewhere. This case is solely about the block of Ehud Lesar.

6) I did not really pay much attention to the Jewish username bit. The location bit came after the block, and was never used in my initial argument.

Reply to Grandmaster from Nishkid64

See what I wrote in my reply to Atabek. I asked Ehud Lesar to confirm that his real name was "Ehud Lesar". He never made any indication that Ehud Lesar was not in fact his real name. Also, judging from the AN/I discussion, it was pretty much implied that Ehud Lesar was the user's real name. Also, judging from Atabek's comments, it appeared that he was hinting that "Ehud Lesar" was not the actually identity of user:Ehud Lesar.

Please, this is not about my choice of words. Regardless of what I said, it appears many people who read the AN/I post were under the impression that Ehud Lesar was the user's real name. You and Atabek spent some time arguing Fedayee's first point about the Jewish username. You said that there are a number of Azerbaijani Jews. Atabek's later comments indicate that Ehud Lesar is not the actual name. It appears that you and Atabek were defending the name, "Ehud Lesar", but then later did a 180 and suggested that it wasn't his name. What changed?

Statement by Thatcher

The funny thing about sockpuppets and checkuser is that whenever checkuser shows that two accounts are related, people complain that IPs are shared and the checkusers don't know what they're doing and you have to look at the contributions. When the contributions show strong similarities of point of view, approach, and interest in obscure topics, people complain that checkuser shows no connection and therefore the accounts can't be the same. Any thinking person with a bit of experience at editing Wikipedia and on the internet can come up with two or three ways of appearing to be in two different places at the same time (with or without the help of a confederate), thus "proving" that he is two different people. So I'm dubious about the value of having Adil and Ehud contact the Foundation with their private IDs. Until Mediawiki enables the clairvoyance extension allowing admins to see who is typing at the other end of the pipe and to know with certainty that that person is not acting on instructions of another, or sharing the account when no one is looking, then we have to go on similarities of style, point of view, and topic interest. I was not convinced of the identity of Ehud when a complaint was posted to WP:AE, and Fedayee's evidence page was not linked to the complaint. But I have no problem if another admin with more experience of this user has made a determination.

Statement by Eupator

I'll keep this brief as I don't think an arbitration case is necessary regarding this matter. If the current compiled evidence was produced earlier, even a checkuser case would have been rejected based on the obviousness that Ehud Laser is not a legitimate user. I'm more worried about Grandmaster's conduct in regards to all of this and gross assumptions of bad faith in regards to virtually everyone. Same with User:Atabek and his persistence of insisting with Grandmaster that Ehud Laser is a legitimate user and accompanied with countless assumptions of bad faith and provocative instances of turning this matter into essentially a battleground. To go as far as to imply that two administrators with a long history of neutrality and absolutely no axe to grind were somehow not genuinely involved is mind boggling. I also don't understand why Grandmaster did not add Atabek as a party to this case as Atabek has been involved in it just as much as Grandmaster has. Everything I wanted to say about Ehud Laser I have here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar I find this to be a waste of time for everyone involved.

Statement by uninvolved User:Atabek

The accusation of User:Ehud Lesar being sock of User:AdilBaguirov has no basis, because:

1) It's not based on checkuser evidence;

2) Blocking administrator showed no interest in verifying the identity of the blocked user within the limitation of WP:PRIVACY. Nishkid64's request here for Ehud Lesar to produce a copy of his passport, especially given the lack of checkuser or any evidence produced by a non-conflicting party, is in violation of WP:PRIVACY.

3) Accusation by User:Nishkid64 that User:Ehud Lesar told him or posted somewhere about his real name being Ehud Lesar is not based on any evidence produced or presented so far.

4) Charges brought up by User:Fedayee and User:VartanM that User:Ehud Lesar is not really Jewish have no supporting evidence. Azerbaijani Jews are tightly integrated into Azerbaijani society, and many support the national point of view as shown by an independent source here [25]. Moreover, accusing someone based on dislike of his account name being associated with a certain ethnicity is simply a violation of WP:PRIVACY and WP:HARASS.

5) User:Fedayee's evidence is frivolous:

6) Overall the argument that Ehud Lesar must be a sock of Adil, because he lives in Texas and has a Jewish username, is ridiculous and carries no basis whatsoever. There are a number of contributors, supporting the same POV as User:Artaxiad banned by ArbCom and caught with 34 checkuser-confirmed sock accounts so far, and residing in the same state of California [28]. This does not establish a basis to accuse them all of sockpuppetry based on assumptions about POV.

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ehud Lesar

Clerk note: Because Ehud Lesar is currently blocked, I would be copying any statement made by him/her on the user talk page to this page, per my clerk note below.
In an email sent to me, Lesar said to link if the statement was too long. A cursory look shows that the formatting and length probably require the statement to be linked, hence that's what I've done.

Ehud Lesar's statement can be viewed here. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fedayee

The whole description of the situation by Grandmaster is full of half-truths. It is also time to decide whether or not AdilBaguirov should ever return to contribute and if it is not best to finally have an indefinite block on his account.

What information is missing here is that many users have already suspected Ehud Lesar months ago and this was also brought during the last arbitration case as arbitrators involved to the last case may remember. When Hetoum started making those accusations to Ehud Lesar, this was part of his reply: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. [29]

Francis Tyers was one of the members (and Admin when AdilBaguirov was not yet banned) who suspected Ehud and as soon as the beginning of July of last year. [30] Then, no evidence was ever compiled which related both users yet practically everyone knew it was Adil. Everything points to him, starting from the day of his registration to his name. The pile of evidence provided against Ehud is not limited to my evidence page, others were provided elsewhere, including the evidence relating the name Lesar with Adil Baguirov. See here. [31]

The problem lies with Grandmaster’s and Atabek’s attempts to defend AdilBaguirov’s sock and having him unbanned. Grandmaster during the last arbitration case has removed the tag of the sock of Adil from here claiming there was no evidence when there was and the evidence is compelling. See this section. Fourth paragraph about DrAlban, 19 June, DrAlban was a confirmed sock of Adil, after he is banned another sock appeared (the same exact day) Zhirtibay, which Grandmaster has claimed again that checkuser did not show the account to be Adil [32]. The choice of names, the fact that they all appeared out of nowhere to support Atabek etc., just as Adil’s sock did.

It is very difficult to assume good faith with so much evidence of the contrary. Grandmaster is distorting my evidence and continues to do it here even after I have shown he is doing this. My quote on Geycha is selectively quoted to change its meaning and claims this is not accurate, while I have already answered to him that he distorted the meaning of my answer here by leaving out a very important piece in that quote. [33] Grandmaster didn’t address that but has referred to how it is spelled in Azeri, (he now continues without correcting himself). [34] I have obviously not replied to this because this is not entirely true, the ‘ç’ has no standardized pronunciation, while it could be spelled kch, tch, or simply ch, and the fact that in the modern Azeri Russianized version, there is a ‘y’ added even then, Grandmaster is not saying the truth. It is not spelled with an ‘e’ but with an ‘o.’ Khoikhoi agreeing with Adil’s version as reported by Grandmaster isn’t even true, as I have explained in the unaddressed reply here. The diff provided on Khoikhoi was a re-introduction of an edit made by Adil a day earlier. [35] Both with an ‘o’, see how there he puts the ‘o’. Adil had it right, but then changed his version; Ehud will be maintaining that version to use it for the same reason used by Adil.

Atabek’s answer is also weird; he claims that it is not based on checkuser, when a checkuser wasn’t evidence according to him to prove Tengri was his sock. [36]. Point 3 by Atabek is also ridiculous, Ehud Lesar was faking an identity, he added himself in the Jewish Wiki project, edited some Jewish related articles, and claimed to be of Jewish ancestor in his userpage. See Grandmaster’s remark here about him being Azerbaijani. Atabek claims that Jews are integrated in Azerbaijani society? And? It still does not address the issue that Ehud considers what happened in Algeria genocide when Turkish lobbyists are the ones who push the qualification the most as a counter-measure to the Armenian genocide. When searching for that term on Google, the second hit is from a journal [37] to which Adil is a contributor. Also, it does not address the fact that Ehud considers what happened in Khojaly a genocide and denies the Armenian Genocide just like Adil. Grandmaster provides evidence which would tend to show that that position is not a fringe position. Check Vartan’s reply at 21:51 [38] on that.

Point 5a) was addressed [39], [40], which was not answered by Atabek, he preferred changing the subject. [41]

Point 5b), Atabek is harassing me with that, I have made that remark once, Atabek brought it back again and again. I have replied to him that I can not post this here. He knows what happens when such information is posted here. But for this information, I have submitted it to one admin who may feel free to provide it to whomever he thinks it is appropriate.

Point 6) does not make sense; the overall argument was never that… there are many other arguments which I didn’t even start to address adequately, like the fact that both Adil and Ehud support myths about the Armenian Diaspora which were put forward by Adil off-wiki for example during the lecture he gave on Wikipedia. Also, Atabek says nothing about the particularity of the name Lesar and why it is related with Adil. Atabek is also making a false analogy which was addressed on various occasions (Azeris living in Texas, Armenians living in California). Vartan already addressed this. There are half a million Armenians in California, at least half of the entire Armenian community in the US. In fact, there are more Armenians only in California than there are Azeris in the US. If an Armenian edits from the US, there is over ½ chance that that person is from California. This cannot be compared with the fact that Adil lives in Texas (with Washington) and that Ehud lives in Texas too.

Both Atabek and Grandmaster address the evidence individually, sure, when taken alone, each piece of evidence is not enough to show the link. But when taken as a whole then everything changes. - Fedayee (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VartanM

I will only address this for now before answering Grandmaster. Is Grandmaster really being honest here? Only in the administrators notice board he strongly suggested and repeated at least on three different occasions that: None of the above is a proof that Ehud is a sock and does not exist in real life. [42]. Grandmaster is not saying that he is not Adil or that there is no proof that he is not Adil, but that Ehud exists in real life, he could not have ignored that everyone was actually speaking of the identity Ehud Lesar. He is replying to the evidences on the Lesar identity and will be repeating this again [43] and again, he will say the same thing: This particular issue can be resolved very simply by verifying the existence of Ehud in real life. So far we have not received any clear instructions on how to do that. From what I see, no matter what Ehud does to prove his existence, it will be rejected by certain people, who are unwilling to accept that they made a mistake accusing this user. [44] Those statements were made when evidences were presented on the name Lesar and that faked identity. It wasn’t until recently, and weird, as both Grandmaster and Atabek started to suggest (about the same time) that the Ehud identity itself was a screen name and comparing it to our usernames. And again also to a new position held by Ehud. How can a family name that is hardly notable other than one individual who was shown to have real life relation with Adil be compared with say Vartan, popular name among Armenians, or other famous Armenians used by Armenian users?

Reply to Grandmater

If you really want this case be accepted, don’t turn it into a circular discussion. You are repeating the same stuff addressed by Fedayee as if he is denying that. The point was that even Azeri users did not spell it that way. Atabek himself called it Gokcha, and then after this whole affair started calling it Goycha, but even then he didn’t spell it with an 'e', when it is with an 'o'. The evidence provided by Fedayee is in two parts. Geycha AND Used it to refer to a republic. On both accounts Ehud spelled the same way Adil did, and used it to refer to the republic. Of course this alone would not prove it is Adil. Those evidences x, y, z, etc. should obviously be treated as x AND y AND z... The Church of Kish article for instance, was created by a single purpose account and then defended by Adil’s confirmed socks, and then Ehud Lesar engaging in there. No matter what people say, this is an obscure article, the position hold by Ehud and the SPA who created the article was defended in a journal which Adil contributes to, a website build by Adil. Is this proof alone? No! And then, the Algerian Genocide thing, is it a proof alone? No! Is the claim of Khojali genocide? Alone proof? No! Is the claim that he hold the identical position held by the scholar (whose article were edited by confirmed socks of Adil) who mostly provided the Armenian genocide revisionist position in the West. Alone proof? No, only an evidence.

What about his position about the Diaspora, which was Adil’s fighting horse in off-wiki gatherings and lectures, alone proof that Ehud is Adil? No! Is the fact that he registered hours after everyone knew Adil will be banned, alone proof? What about the name Lesar? Is the fact that most if not all Lesar's in Texas are related to the David J. Lesar's family, who runs a company which associates itself with Adil, is an evidence that Ehud is Adil? Is the fact that he editwarred and reverted for other Azeri users when they run out of revert confirmation it is Adil? No! All of those alone are not confirmation when taken alone as Fedayee said. Neither the fact that Adil is known to forge identities with foreign names. Is the fact that Adil(splitting his time in Huston and Washington DC) and Ehud both live in Texas proof alone? No, it isn’t. What about the fact that Adil's sockpuppets stopped in more than one occasion when Ehud Lesar started contributing, and didn't reappear as long as Ehud Lesar was contributing. Is the fact that Ehud claimed that it is a positive thing to be impressed by Adil a confirmation it is Adil? No! Of course, each evidence taken alone can be rejected as not being sufficient proof. Is turning a banal article into an article about destructions by Armenians like this confirmation alone?. Or here. But then, even his interest on Jewish matters is so Adil of him. See here for example.

More could be added, everything points to him, the way he edited, his interests, when he registered, his personal theories, his sarcasm and even the username. The bulk of counter-evidence (which doesn’t even try to address some very important pieces) is based on the false belief that dismantling each piece without considering their interconnection and more importantly the bigger picture would be enough. It is not enough, or else, no proof of sockpuppetry can ever be provided, even if IP address was shared, only on the assumption that there is some possibility that two people could have posted with the same IP without being the same person.VartanM (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More about Adil

Adil knows his Ehud account wont be unblocked tomorrow (never). He registered on 19 April 2007 on Wikisource and didn't start editing until 16 January 2008, [45] few days after Ehud was blocked. Knowing Adil, I'll bet that the IP won't match with Ehud. VartanM (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Given Ehud Lesar is currently blocked indefinitely, should he/she choose to make a statement at this stage, I (or another clerk) can copy it from his user talk page (which he can still edit) to here. Should this case be accepted, Ehud Lesar may be unblocked to take part, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee or community consensus. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment: awaiting completion of Nishkid64's statement, and a statement from Ehud Lazar, before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Discretionary sanctions for the entire A-A area have now passed; I trust that the admins watching this area will be able to deal with this particular situation via that method, without the need for further involvement from our side. Kirill 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPOV and civility in fringe articles

Initiated by ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— at 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Done. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[46] [47] [48][49][50]

And many many more.

Statement by Martinphi

First: this is not a content dispute: we don't need any help determining content. The problem is 1. disruptive editing, edit warring and POV pushing (based on both conscious and unconscious subversion of WP policy) and 2. Incivility and poisoning of the atmosphere.

That said.........

We would like the ArbCom to consider the actions of a group of editors who say they have been trying to write articles from the Scientific POV rather than from NPOV. They even wish to invoke Ignore all rules to use original research to debunk pseudoscientific, religious, and paranormal claims. They want to give more space to mainstream science within an article on a fringe subject than to the subject itself. They are also extremely rude[51] (I tried to work this one out but... [52][53]), and have poisoned the atmosphere in fringe areas of Wikipedia [54][55].

[...](well it's all garbage, but that's another point...;-) in this discussion, it is a "pseudoscientific statement" made in the movie. When dealing with anything related to science on any subject at Wikipedia, whether it be a movie, a biography, an article on alternative medicine or quackery, etc., scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for dealing with the scientific matter at hand, and WEIGHT would so dictate. If someone in an article about themselves here is quoted as making an obviously unscientific statement, it would be appropriate to quote a mainstream scientific source to prevent readers from being misled by the Wikipedia article. That's not OR, it's common sense. If it weren't common sense, IOW used to help fringe ideas violate WEIGHT, it would be another matter. If necessary, just invoke WP:IAR. -- Fyslee / talk 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC) [56]

In pursuit of this goal (and the larger goal to simply disparage), they have created large and ongoing disruptions of many articles, such as What the Bleep Do We Know!?, Parapsychology, and others. They have also been extremely contemptuous of the "kooks," cranks, and "true believers" (etc.) who disagree with their positions in any way, or believe in the "balderdash" and "bullshit" of anything fringe, thus poisoning the wiki atmosphere. Some even believe non-SPOV users should be disenfranchised (see last two posts).

The goal of this group is always to tear down any chance that a fringe subject may naturally have to seem worthy [57].

Imagine the reverse case: if the SPOV group were less numerous, and other editors continually referred to them (never, of course, mentioning names), as kooks, and their beliefs by words such as garbage, twaddle and insanity [58]includes a lot...edit summary here proselytizing [59] edit summary [60] Sheesh, I guess I should blow him?. And these are just a sample: there is a continual drizzle of such oblique (and sometimes personal) disparagment which comes down on the heads of anyone who displeases the SPOV editors.

If you think we are merely a bunch of fringe POV pushers, perhaps you'll take pleasure in seconding this response:

Yada yada yada. Nothing new to add to the usual special pleading then? Guy (Help!) 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC) [61]

——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antelan

Since there is a normal process by which civility issues are dealt with, I would imagine that going through that process before coming here (if ultimately necessary) would be preferable to starting here. Antelan talk 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Benjaminbruheim

I can feel the pain, but I think this is rather the symptom rather than the problem. But the introduction of the problematic words "mainstream science" and "pseudoscience" has introduced a system where certain journals are regarded as "unreliable sources" and all the articles end up being the written from the mainstream science perspective. For non-obvious reasons this makes the content unfairly treated. For example a suspect that is notable within fringe science might be written from a perspective where there has been no serious inquiry. Thus we should allow a plurality of opinions where many mutually incompatible opinions are written, but where a subject is deemed highly unlikely by a respected field it should be mentioned. Opinions from scientists should be used with caution, unless their claims are easily verifiable. Additionally I feel some skeptical articles being used as sources can be regarded as fringe, compare the RS status of SCICOP vs Journal of Scientific Exploration. Both are controversial sources yet CSICOP is regarded as a trusted source. At the same time the best info on fringe subjects are in the primary sources. There are the other patent non-sense fringe subjects, but then the science and other research do the job itself. This is a huge complex and could need a better forum of debate, but it is not only a single policy. I suggest WP:SCIENCE, since we need a more rigid method applying the wide variation of science that exists anyway. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion needs a new venue.

Can the ArbCom consider to suggest a common ground for a discussion on fringe or even WP:SCIENCE

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

Should arbcom undertake this case, I trust they will demand evidence for the extremely serious charge "they have organized large and ongoing disruptions of many articles." Should no evidence be found that the editing in question was deliberately organized and was intended merely to disrupt -- rather than to offer perspectives with which Martinphi happens to disagree -- arbcom may wish to consider sanctioning an editor who spuriously accuses others of such misconduct. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fyslee

I don't see any paper trail that shows a proper sequence of dispute resolution. This looks more like an abuse of the RfArb system to harass users with whom one disagrees. If I have offended Martin, then he can certainly come to my talk page and we can talk about it like adults. Using RfArb is tantamount to shooting sparrows with a canon, that's how disruptive the RfArb process is. It should be reserved when all else fails, and not for taking revenge. Considering the source of this request and his extremely controversial history here, I suggest extreme caution lest this forum becomes a soapbox for further promotion of fringe POV.

Regarding the statement "...the Scientific POV rather than from NPOV." I don't believe that the scientific POV (SPOV) is always equal to NPOV, but that SPOV is often to be given WEIGHT in articles where the sources and subject matter so dictate. Scientific sources are much more likely to qualify as V & RS than fringe sources, which are often personal sites from various renegades, quacks, visionaries, and others who invariably possess "the truth", promote conspiracy theories and personal OR, encourage hatred against science and authorities, etc. Such sources often fail to qualify for obvious reasons. Unfortunately the promoters and protectors of fringe subjects often fail to realize this and object strongly when their sources are questioned or deleted because they simply fail to qualify, all according to policy here. They take the standard scientific "provide evidence for your claims" as an insult and incivility, when that happens to be standard practice among scientists and skeptics, and is also required here if we are to keep articles from becoming filled with unreliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Viridae

Scietific point of view IS a neutral point of view, formed by consensus within the scientific community using a peer review system. (disclaimer - I am a scientist) ViridaeTalk 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeloniousMonk

This is simply a content dispute, and one that appears to be driven by more by Martinphi's failure to understand WP:NPOV ("where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented ... articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views") and the arbcom's former ruling on the topic in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience than by any other cause. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zenwhat

  • This is a content dispute, but saying that by itself does not imply ArbCom is irrelevant if dispute-resolution is not possible.
  • It is a particularly contentious content dispute that has existed across several pages. Policy does not explicitly state that articles should express the mainstream "scientific POV," however, a number of policies seem to imply it.
  • From what I understand, Jimbo himself has stated that the word, "NPOV," may be misleading, because it is meant as the reliable, objective view without bias, not a false compromise or 'neutral' middle-ground between competing biases.
  • What seems to be the issue is not the factual content of the articles, but the tone.
    • On the one hand, you have hard-nosed, atheistic skeptics (see James Randi), who would like every article on New Age-related issues to be tagged with Category:Pseudoscience and contain leads which explicitly state their rejection by the mainstream scientific community.
    • On the other hand, there are supporters of these fringe theories that wish to remove criticism entirely, even sourced criticism, and will simultaneously use unreliable sources while disputing clearly reliable ones.

I have stated that there a number of NPOV issues that need to be dealt with, but neither side is particularly in the right.

My suggestion is the following:

  1. That ArbCom clarify WP:FRINGE and put forth a specific criterion for what constitutes a "pseudoscience," that editors can appeal to, in order to resolve disputes, or at least request that the community come up with such a definition. One possible source for such information may be Pseudoscience#Identifying pseudoscience (not to be used as a primary source of course, but through verifying the claims made there, by reliable sources).
  2. That all criticism and apologetics for various pseudosciences be moved outside of article leads (such as in Astrology) and into specific sections, such as "Criticism" or "Scientific Reception," but that such articles fairly reflect the scientific consensus. There are some exceptions, of course, such as Homeopathy.

Now, on that last point, why do I make that distinction? The distinction is made because if a subject is frequently falsely presented as a science, such as Homeopathy or Ayurveda or What the Bleep Do We Know!?, then including criticism of pseudoscience in the lead makes sense. In the case of Astrology and Divination, 90% of the time its proponents put it forth as metaphysics, not science ("beyond" + "physics"). As an ex-Pagan myself, I know that a brief walk through the book store yields the fact that books on Astrology are often in sections entitled, "New Age," or "Metaphysical studies," or "Occult." Furthermore, it's existed before modern science, making it inappropriate for criticism of pseudoscience to remain in the lead.

Despite that, however, the actual information about criticism from scientists and skeptics should remain, according to the policy on preserving information.

Lastly, on the issue of civility, Wikipedia is not censored. Being caustic, cynical, sarcastic, and so on, is not by itself uncivil, though it may come across that way. This was noted a while back in my wikiquette alert regarding User:Sceptre. Furthermore, in the discussion over What the Bleep Do We Know!? (see the talk page) it's important to note that, at one point, someone arguing against the skeptics violated Godwin's law, making one-sided complaints about incivility somewhat spurious. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Baegis

I don't think I will make many friends by saying this, but perhaps this case should be considered and heard. For far too long, fringe pov pushers have been allowed to harrass and otherwise destroy articles while perfectly good editors have been driven away from the project. I have only been here for about 6 months and have already seen this occur enough times that it worries me. What needs to be established is a clear policy for dealing with editors who constantly disrupt and fail to read policy, except to distort it in order to have it meet their own needs. When will we, as a community, rise up and finally say that we have had enough and will stop giving disruptive editors chance after chance after chance? Maybe now is the time. Maybe this is the place. Baegis (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nealparr

Current model of Wikipedia articles on topics with widespread popularity in culture, but which are either not supported by science, or are targets of rational skeptics: 

(Believers -> Wikipedia article <- Skeptics)
                      |
                (Cleanup Crew)

Enough said. It's not coincidence that it looks like a mushroom cloud, and yes, both groups screw up the articles. For every pro push, there's a retaliatory push to slant it con. Each push is more excessive than the previous one. Even when an article is overall neutral, they'll fight over the lead, or a particular sentence, or even a word. And this is important: It's not about science vs. pseudoscience. In nearly all cases it is completely about believer vs. skeptic. The former wants the topic treated with credibility, and the latter wants the topic treated without credibility, whether science is involved or not. The ones I feel sorry for are the cleanup crew. They're always accused of being on the left or right of the top tier, when they're just trying to fix the damn article to look like an encyclopedia. It's a crazy, hostile work involvement. In any case, I'm on wikibreak, so I can be taken off the list of involved parties. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The classic example of so-called skeptics deviating from science is Penn and Teller dismissing global warming[62]. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rracecarr

The diff Martin posted [63] is my edit. Supposedly it is proof that I (we?) are "extremely rude". However I did not say or imply anything about any editors in the post. The best guess I can make is that referring to people who believe that dead people speak through radio static as "delusional crazies" is the rude part. I suppose Martin actually believes this, and so took it as a personal affront. I had no idea he believed it. I did not mean to offend. On the other hand, Martin was quite rude to me directly. Rracecarr (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jim62sch

So far as I can see, this is simply a content dispute, and the "evidence" is hardly compelling. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

It seems to me that the current method of choice for people hoping to impose accommodation of fringe and pseudoscientific beliefs on Wikipedia is to rigorously focus on conduct rules as a way of eliminating those who would resist this agenda. Unforunately, we have taken notice and are even now taking steps to censor ourselves so that nothing we say can be construed as personal attacks or lacking civility. Hopefully, within a few months, the people fighting undue accommodation of the fringe will be polite to a fault and then all that will be left is to impose their collective editorial will on the relevant articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Pseudoscience and fringe science fans are engaged in relentless POV-pushing. They are the canonical soup-spitters. And yes, the result of their absolutely never giving up however often they are rebuffed, however often articles are wrestled from the appalling excesses of fringegruft and returned to NPOV, yes, that is incredibly vexing.

Their relentless and maddening querulousness is a pressing problem, causing endless wasted effort while we debate fatuous issues like whether we should use the conclusions of a Government report or perhaps instead use a cherry-picked paragraph from the middle of the report which is much more supportive of the tiny number of people who are actively pursuing research in a field that the rest of the scientific establishment either ignores or treats with scorn. Yup, that's a titanic waste of effort, and sometimes people are abrupt as a result.

Please do ban the whole bloody lot of them, I've had a gutfull. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Arion

I would like to state that the hostility and ganging up that is inflicted upon editors who insist upon NPOV academic writing standards is out of control. There is no excuse for it. That includes this frequent invoking of "scientific" POV as the excuse for attacking the intelligence and integrity of other editors, and for excusing bullying tactics to enforce deletions of article content they disagree with (as opposed to discussing to reach consensus). Attempts to engage in serious discussions on improving an article are often responded to with accusations that an editor is "POV pushing" and advocating "pseudoscience". Discussions on the talk pages by these "SPOV" advocates often include rude and sarcastic juvenile level humor that is mocking and derisive. Everyone has seen this repeated innumerable times. The hostile atmosphere here at Wikipedia must change, and NPOV must be upheld for what everyone else in the world understands it to be. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

First, I am hardly a member of some group with a determined agenda to deal with fringe articles. The primary fringe article I have been dealing with is What the Bleep Do We Know, which has been a very contentious article for a number of months, primarily because of a group of editors that does not wish to apply WP:FRINGE to the article. WP:FRINGE requires that ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Certainly, the extensions to quantum mechanics promulgated in the movie constitute such things, the very reason that we have reliable sources using words like tosh and balderdash to describe it. Martinphi and others believe NPOV to require us to be nicer to the movie than our reliable sources are, and to give credence to suspect organizations like the Institute of Noetic sciences. No. This is an encyclopedia, and, on article about science and on movies that discuss science, the viewpoint of mainstream science is the neutral point of view.Kww (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filll

This mainly looks like a content dispute to me, with some minor incivility problems.

However, one of the reasons that Wikipedia is having a difficult time recruiting and retaining subject matter experts from Academia and the sciences is the endless pandering to WP:FRINGE elements, and somehow giving these people who push these extreme antiscience and mystical views 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 50th, 1003rd chances to disrupt the writing of a scholarly encyclopedia. Wikipedia is viewed as free webspace to promote the most extreme crank theories. If they are unable to do this unchallenged they feel that somehow their rights are being violated.

After some observation, I have noticed that almost every single one does not understand what NPOV is, or the fact that NPOV does not mean an uncritical point of view or a sympathetic point of view. If a topic purports to be a scientific topic, like polywater or cold fusion, the rules of NPOV of course state that material in Wikipedia should be in proportion and in accord with the prominence with the views in the relevant field. However, I have seen that this prominence clause is almost always ignored in every pseudoscience article, every quack medicine article, every article about creationism, every article about the paranormal, by the proponents of these unproven and unscientific views for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

Of course, these topics should be clearly described. But this does not mean that the other side, the scientific view, should not be presented clearly, and prominently. Wikipedia is not a platform to unquestioningly broadcast the merits of the latest psychic surgery technique.

Invariably the promoters of WP:FRINGE material misinterpret WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and other policies and create discord, leading to the examples in the original RfAr above. If Arbcomm decides to consider this, I would respectfully suggest that they consider how to make the point that the NPOV is quite close to the scientific POV in many of these FRINGE topics, and maybe suggest ways in which better guidelines can be created for how to handle this endless series of disputes. Unfortunately, the present set of policies is not working well, leading to disputes, and many editors becoming discouraged and just leaving, leading to a lot of bad material or lost material in Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief statement to attempt to correct some misunderstandings of WP:NPOV being made here. Statements like "the viewpoint of mainstream science is the neutral point of view" are highly misleading. The correct statement is "the viewpoint of mainstream science is the mainstream point of view". Neutral point of view is about applying due weight to different viewpoints, to create a balanced article. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" (sometimes misinterpreted as the 'correct' POV), but deciding which views are mainstream (having said that, it is true that 'neutral' is increasingly used as a term of art on Wikipedia with a meaning distinct from the normal meaning - which is, as always, unhelpful for people who don't realise this). Articles editors should document the opinions of others on which view is 'correct', but that has little to do with 'neutral point of view'. Maybe it is time to rename NPOV if this common misunderstanding is gaining ground again? Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to MastCell, who quoted this: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." - the key here is whether articles such as What the Bleep Do We Know!? count as scientific topics. There is a good case to be made that this is, and should be, an article about the film/documentary, the making of it, the people who made it, the content, and the reaction to it. The article should not be turned into a battleground over the topics being discussed in the film. Instead, it should carefully link to our articles on those topics, and those are the scientific topics that the ArbCom ruling was undoubtedly talking about. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

I'm actually surprised I'm not listed as an involved party; as far as I can tell, the list above is essentially a shotgun of almost every editor involved with MartinPhi on a semi-regular basis. I suppose MartinPhi didn't list ScienceApologist because ScienceApologist got driven off in part by MartinPhi's antics yet again. The bottom line is that per the undue weight clause in NPOV, NPOV is not precisely SPOV but they are close for most topics related to science, especially fringe science topics. Some editors see this distinction as being worthy of note (such as myself) others such as Viridae see the distinction as so small as to not merit distinction. Where exactly that distinction lies and how much weight to give to fringe or pseudoscience topics are complicated issues that need to be decided by consensus and often is. MartinPhi to be blunt is unhappy that the consensus interpretation on Wikipidea consistently does not favor given large weight to the many non-standard ideas of which he is a proponent. There doesn't seem to be anything really ArbCom worthy here at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rocksanddirt

This is mostly a content dispute with both some tenditious editing and some incivility thrown in to make it unpleasant. My take is that the focus on labels (pseudoscience) and the focus on limiting critical or mainstream views in "fringe" articles is the main content under discussion. We don't attract academics, because we don't allow original research. We attract scientists of various stripes because there is a lot out there, without the original research that academics want to write. We spend to much time on the reliablility of sources, rather than explaining the reliability of a reference in an article and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. I don't think this is a dispute that arbcomm can help with right now, other than to remind folks to play nice, and read what others have written rather than talk past each other. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlabtot

I have spent some time at What the Bleep Do We Know!? attempting to broker compromise and cool passions, so I was surprised I was not listed as an involved editor. Anyway, absent a sincere desire to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the part of editors, and in the face of outright contempt of WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia doesn't work. There does exist a persistent pattern of incivility and edit-warring at these articles; the problem is essentially one of conduct, not content; if ArbCom declines the case now, it's just delaying the inevitable. Eventually, you'll have to deal with it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levine2112

It's a bit unsettling how much people differ in their interpretations of NPOV. Overall, I come closest to agreeing with the NealParr, who made the chart which resembled a mushroom cloud. You have extremists on both sides. However, where I agree with NealParr that on one side of the cloud you have the "True Believers", on the other side of the cloud, perhaps NealParr should have put the "Pseudoskeptics" instead of the "Skeptics". I think the true skeptics - the real critical thinkers - constitute part of the "clean up crew" (along with the "People who don't give a damn either way"). :-)

Some of us are too quick to label others "True Believers", but then balk when someone calls us a "True Dis-believer". A true skeptic should be open to all possibilities, no matter how unreal or magical it seems (the more unbelievable it seems, the more evidence which is required to convince the true skeptic). Science - true science - is not an exact science. In general, there aren't many theories which are immutable scientific laws. A lot of times, I see an editor dismissing something as pseudoscience when it is actually very much a true science (or at least truly scientific), just with a theory that is antithetical to the science this editor holds dear. A person not willing to consider these alternative scientific theory is by definition a "Pseudoskeptic".

"Pseudoscience" and "Fringe science" have a true definition, however, I've seen these definitions skewed and abused in the name of pushing a POV. The threshold and treatment of pseudoscience which we should all abide in here at Wikipedia can be found at WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. In general, don't characterize something as pseudoscience if it is merely a "questionable science" or an "alternative theoretical formulation".

NPOV is not SPOV. NPOV is a balance of opinions based on due weight of the sources. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, but a collection of knowledge - information which can be cited to a reliable source.

Finally, just to be clear where I am coming from, please know that I only recently got involved at the What the Bleep Do We Know? article, and only in the capacity to try and reach some accord and consensus. I have tried to set up an informal survey as part of dispute resolution, and though it was generally well-received, I was perturbed (though not surprised) that an editor supposedly pushing for NPOV vandalized my attempts, calling them "pointless" among making other uncivil gestures. For my part, I rather enjoyed the film, What the Bleep. My sense of wonderment was thoroughly entertained. However, I came away believing very little (if any) of the theories presented in the film. Despite my disbelief of the theories presented, however, I am willing to put in the effort to make sure that the film's Wikipedia article is not overrun by criticism (no matter how much I agree with the critics). Certainly, much of the film's notability comes from the scientific criticism, but this in not the only side to it, nor is the praise/criticism of the film the only reason why it is notable.

I say all this because editors have called me a true believer in the pseudoscience or a fringe POV pusher. I am not either of those things. I am a true believer in Wikipedia and a pusher of following its guidelines and policies. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PeterStJohn

The difficulty, IMO, is that the pattern of abuse is diffuse, and that no individual diff can be unambiguously construed as violation of any explicit policy, though the aggregrate effect does violate the spirit. I've tried to enunciate this at my RfC regarding Ronz, which is related to this RfA (starting as it did with the Quackwatch article). Pete St.John (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive Oil

In my mind, fundamental to this discussion and at the root of the controversy on this article is that this, an encyclopedia, is above all else a repository for knowledge rather than a platform for defining some perceived truth. Fundamental to an understanding of controversy in the ‘What the Bleep’ article is that once again this is an encyclopedic article, about a movie, only inside of which, can the movie’s content exist. Issues of concern include:

  • Suggestions and editing that indicate that Science is the main focus of the article, rather than the movie.
  • Editors engage in language and tone that lack civility. This not only makes personal discussion harder, but also creates a toxic atmosphere for the entire talk pages, in part, because it can be relentless.
  • Editors do not assume good faith but insist that edits are made for POV purposes, when in fact most editors supporting neutrality have never even voiced an opinion about the movie. Most editors have agreed to use the controversial word (controversial in this article, that is), pseudoscience, in the body of the article. Some consider that having the word in the lead, is inappropriate in terms of writing a lead, because the general public does not necessarily understand the word, so possibly needs further explanation more suitable in the body of the article. Yet on several occasions some have agreed to leave pseudoscience in the lead anyway, just to move on with establishing a lead section. However, repeatedly, these advances are squashed.

All of these problems should be surmountable, and editors on both sides have contributed enormously to attempting to find solutions. In repeated instances at the point when it looks as if a solution is possible, the discussion is abruptly turned again to questions about Science, and the whole discussion must move into another highly repetitious cycle. I could allude to what I think the problem is, but I might as well be more forthright than that. Pseudoscience supporters may see this as a place to make a stand for the truth about how they see science and fringe science. I can’t understand though, why, even when there seems to be progress made towards consensus efforts are still made to “stonewall”. My efforts and concerns for this article have nothing to do with the article itself; although I saw the movie I can barely remember it. I am more concerned with a misunderstanding of what OR is, and with hints I see in this discussion of a desire to move the kind of argument, for inclusion of material, that is OR, into mainstream Wikipedia. If that begins to happen, blurring and erosion will follow, and the back of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia will be broken.

As I check the discussion today, some progress is being made.

I want to mention that a reference made by Zenwhat to Godwin’s Law references me and not any other editors. I used the reference Wikipedia itself makes to OR and Hitler, and it was construed as a violation. (olive (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by MastCell

The proposed scope of this case seems extremely broad, and the allegations made, of organized large-scale disruption, are not particularly well-supported by the diffs provided. I don't see how ArbCom can adjudicate such a nebulously defined user-conduct problem. As to the role of SPOV, ArbCom has already provided their gloss on the topic:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.[1]

Unless the current Committee wishes to amend that nicely-written finding, I don't see the makings of a case here. MastCell Talk 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim Butler

I don't see anything here that isn't already covered by WP:TPG and the material at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience (taken from the earlier Arbcom decision that MastCell just cited).

And WP:RS:

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

That nails it from all sides. If everyone heeded that, and pigs could fly, everything would be cool. --Jim Butler(talk) 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree- this of course being exactly why it is not a content dispute, but a matter of user behavior and POV pushing! ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree, also - I've seen pages where the introduction concludes with something along the lines of "Mainstream consensus is that this is a big steaming load" followed either by no citation or a citation to somebody with little or no scientific background, when in fact the truth is that no mainstream research has been carried out. This is particularly irksome when the topic is a popular culture topic such as an urban myth when there is no science involved at all. In which case the addition of said comment is pejoratives in itself because it is intending to discredit the topic. - perfectblue (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is community disagreement about what an adequate source for "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is, then we do have to address that somehow, perhaps first by RfC or WP:RSN. That is pretty basic stuff. (n.b. teh James Randi is not such a source. No individual scientist is. Position statements from mainstream scientific bodies are, cf. Scientific opinion on climate change.
That said, I think that fringe topics that don't attract such mainsteam commentary may be balanced by statements from notable skeptics; however, those statements should be cited as being the views of the authors, and not more than that.
(Also, if I opine that foo is garbage, I am not attacking you even if you love foo.) :-) --Jim Butler(talk) 07:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am considering re-stating my statement above to say there is a foo fight going on at Wikipedia : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Butler, no one has stated my position on the state of things better than you have just done. Thanks for the true clarity. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PerfectBlue

It has been determined by two separate Arbcoms that in order to for an article to have a neutral point of view it must accommodate all noteworthy perspective. * *. This includes perspectives that fall out of line with the scientific mainstream. Yet there remain parties who insist, for all intensive purposes, that the N in NPOV should stand for normal, not neutral, and that NPOV means MPOV or mainstream point of view. This is of great concern to me because it is not merely a content dispute, it is users removing evidence that debate exists or that people disagree with the mainstream and then saying that it is Wikipedia policy to do so.

As per Jim Butler (see above), it also concerns me that said users are claiming that there is a scientific consensus when in fact what we often have are individuals expressing their own personal opinions in areas where there is either no mainstream scientific consensus because there has not been any reliable mainstream research from which to draw a consensus. Often the individuals quoted are people such as James Randi and the editor of Skeptic's dictionary who are not scientists and are not in official positions in which it can be claimed that they speak for the wider scientific community.

There have been two arbcoms as it is and both have reached the exact same conclusion. Isn't it time the results of these arbcoms were translated into something more solid? - perfectblue (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline. All editors in this area should be mindful of our basic policies, including civility, the avoidance of personal attacks, and the maintenance of a neutral point of view (including avoiding undue weight problems), as well as the principles enunciated by the arbitrators in prior cases. In talkpage discussions on articles like the ones at issue here, contributors should think twice before hitting "send" on a post discussing another editor, as opposed to discussing article content itself. I know that some of you find each other exasperating, but this tracks disagreements in the real world, and compliance with policies and standards by all sides should reduce interpersonal disputes. However, I see no specific dispute calling for a new arbitration case at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Do not see anything specific in our purview for the Committee to review or settle. FloNight (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The essential point of this case appears to be an attempt to negate WP:FRINGE by other means. Even if inclined to support that, I would think it an inappropriate content and policy ruling for an arbitrator. I am not convinced that this committee would assist writing a high quality encyclopaedia by restricting editing in this proposed case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declne. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian economics

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Still in the process of notifying them.) Zenwhat (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request noted. Skomorokh incite 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All parties have been notified. Just in the process of posting diffs here to confirm it. Zenwhat (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The request involves a block, substantial edit-warring (across several pages -- not merely those discussed in this basic summary), a rejected page-protect, and wheel-warring. This claim is demonstratably false. Coccyx isn't an admin and the appropriate block log is here [64] and no wheel-warring appears to have been attempted. A mistake on my part, apologies. Zenwhat (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

Zenwhat (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zenwhat

It has been noted before that trolls are sometimes capable of winning successful edit-wars through sockpuppetry and having admins which support them block editors for intellectual reasons. This case appears to be such an example.

In this case, at my request (and anyone is free to reject my request) I would like the arbitrators to make the following assumptions about policy to be made explicit:

  • That there be roughly no assumptions be made at all in the case of evaluating my statements
  • No personal attacks against me or the accused (I'm saying this to be explicit -- not for admins, but for non-admins involved)
  • Invocations of past offenses are potential signs of bad faith, but not proof of guilt
  • The burden of proof rest with me to prove my case
  • That Assume good faith applies especially upon the accused because of the presumption of innocence
  • That, despite the current wording of Wikipedia policy, it be firmly recognized that User:AuburnPilot and others accused have an individual inalienable right to edit Wikipedia because of its core policy: A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Per Wikipedia is not a democracy, this freedom may not be arbitrarily taken away by the majority.

It is not my intent to abuse wikipedian bureaucracy to remove editors I don't like. With that said, the evidence surrounding this case may be found here: User:Zenwhat/Evidence

I have no specific requests at this time, but would like the community and ArbCom itself to decide how this matter ought to be handled. Because of the likelihood that it will come to light and an "attempt to vanish" before putting forth an ArbCom proposal would seem deceptive, I now disclose: User:Nathyn is my previous account, I did likely make some contentious, silly edits, including vandalism when I was far younger. However, overall, my edits were constructive Actually, a quick review of my contributions shows that all of my contributions under my previous account were good. It appears I only vandalized a few times while logged out, with no actual proof of it, and my claims about past behavior are unverifiable, and thus put forth strictly on a voluntary basis Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC), I have never engaged in sockpuppetry.[reply]

I have included User:Sarsaparilla in this case, because this overall problem -- and the possibility of her being the sockpuppet of one of the above users, see here. Karmaisking has been included because he is a well-known sockpuppet, so it's certainly acceptable that he be included in this investigation.

Statement by User:AuburnPilot

I'm not sure why I'm named as an involved party here, as my only involvement has been to block Zenwhat for edit warring and a clear cut violation of the three revert rule on the Austrian School article (diffs: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]). Zenwhat was warned by several editors, including myself, before he reverted the 5th time and received a standard 24 hour block. My involvement is negligible, and I have no intentions of joining an arbitration case related to a single 3RR block. I would, however, encourage Zenwhat to familiarize himself with policy; especially WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm also not sure why Zenwhat names me specifically in his claim that everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia, but I firmly disagree with that assessment. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia; it is a privilege that can be revoked at anytime. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by east718

I am uninvolved aside from a declined protection request and this alert. Mountain. Molehill. east.718 at 16:07, January 13, 2008

East718, I don't have much to say in your case other than that your page-protect was clearly unjustified, when I asked you to reconsider your position you made statements that contradicted policy word-for-word. When I pointed this out, you were rude and told me to go away.
In the case of Auburn, he\she is blatantly a POV-pusher. How exactly a WP:SPA can get admin privileges -- I am absolutely curious. The list of names above is the list of people "relevant" to this case -- that doesn't necessarily only include people that directly edited such articles. This case is specifically about Austrian economics, but it is also more generally about the vandalism on Austrian economics, which is why I also invoked User:Sarsaparilla in the original discussion, though she herself has not edited Austrian economics. Zenwhat (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coccyx Bloccyx

Uhh, can someone please explain how and why I'm a party to this case? I can see that is is going to be rejected, but I'd like to know all the same. Thanks. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

  • Decline. Nothing here approaching the need for an arbitration case, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process. There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised. In addition, portions of the request for arbitration are not comprehensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. No need for a case is evident. The Community can handle any issues that need to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per both of my colleagues above. Can I suggest that Zenwhat's essay on Wikiliberalism may be more appropriate for a user subpage than in project space? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Flo. James F. (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

Initiated by user:Tkguy at 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Crotalus horridus diff Cool Hand Luke diff Saranghae honey diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Due to the fact that this personal attack involved links to an Asian forum that I've participate in, I felt the need to protect my identity and my postings on the forum from public scrutiny. I decided against RFC not only because it attracts too much public attention but also because the last time this was done on this article diff this brought User:Cool Hand Luke, one of the involved parties, to the article. So around 1/4/2008 I tried to contact an admin I could trust. So I used the wikipedia email feature and emailed User:Neil. I didn't receive a response so I left Neil a note on his talk page that I sent an email. I still haven't receive a response.
  • I then emailed user:East718 and left a note on his talk page.user:East718 at first claim that I wanted him to get involved with the dispute on Asian fetish. I wrote back that I was asking for help with regards to personal attacks on the Asian fetish talk page. I then stated that I would submit and arbitration request since none of the admin wanted to help me. He then replied that he didn't have the time to help me and that he was sorry and offered to refer somebody else.
  • I emailed user:Royalguard11 on 1/5/2008 and left a note on his talk page. He replied back that since he was the protecting admin (the page is currently locked by him due to edit waring) he can't get involved in debates. I pointed out that I was not asking him to get involved and that I needed help with personal attacks. He then wrote back that he had trouble finding the personal attack links in my email. I replied that the links was in my first email to him. Apparently his response was put on the Asian fetish talk page and he acknowledges the personal attack but indicates that I am causing the problem for threatening to open an arbitration.
  • Posted on the Asian fetish talk page that I would submit an arbitration request if the Personal attacks were not removed and a apology was not made.
  • Posted a message on user:Crotalus horridus's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
  • Posted a message on user:Cool Hand Luke's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
    • user:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, didn't delete the comments, instead marked it. This is similiar to his actions when I was previously attacked by user:Kintetsubuffalo by being called a "pedantic little creep". I called him out on this personal attack but then user:Cool Hand Luke rather than deleting this comment, he marked the comment and labeled it "Incivility, apparently from both sides. Comment on the content, not the contributers". I didn't respond to the personal attacks on Asian fetish that is the focus of this WP:RFAR, because I knew there would be a high risk of being labeled "uncivil".
  • Posted a message on user:Saranghae honey's talk page for him or her to remove his or her personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
  • I deleted the personal attacks off the talk:Asian fetish page diff. Tkguy (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tkguy

I was personally attacked and stalked by editors on Asian fetish. I hope that the arbitration board will punish these people and roll back their comments on talk:Asian fetish. The Asian fetish page is under protection due to edit warring. The involved party here intend to add significant changes as inferred below, without obtaining consensus diff. I would like the page to remain protected until after this arbitration has been completed.

Recently the seemingly perpetual edit waring took a very negative turn on this article. Rather than researching Asian fetish, user:Crotalus horridus chosed to research me with the passion of a stalker. Soon afterwards user:Cool Hand Luke and user:Saranghae honey did the same. Here user:Crotalus horridus posted on the talk:Asian fetish, directions on how to "research" me diff and discovered that I posted to an asian forum. He then proceeded to create a section on the talk:Asian fetish titled "==More about Tkguy==" and poplated it with links to some of the posts I've made 1st & 2nd 3rd. Of course it does not matter what I think or believe so long as I abide by wikipedia's rules. Here is the entire portion of the talk page with the personal attacks. user:Crotalus horridus labelled me as a racist by writing the following:

User:Saranghae honey supported user:Crotalus horridus actions by adding to this section with his or her own research on me here and here and is obviously working with user:Crotalus horridus in that he or she created a copy of Asian fetish here, while it is still under protection to circumvent obtaining community consensus. This was done at the advice of user:Crotalus horridus, diff. Saranghae honey's invitation to Crotalus horridus to update a copy of Asian fetish. Cool Hand Luke's approval of Saranghae honey's circumvention of gaining consensus.

User:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, encouraged more personal attacks by contributing to this section. He suggested that I should be blocked from editting diff.Then made the following comment diff: He then posted two links (first one, second one) to posts I've made on the forum. He wrote that this was wrong and then does this not once but TWICE!

This section ends with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Saranghae honey discussing about how it's ok to track what I am doing on wikipedia and arrogantly have this discussion on the Asian fetish tallk page diff.

I hope that the people will look past the emotions that the topic of Asian fetish invokes and see that I was personally attacked, bullied and stalked and will not let such actions go unpunished. And I am hoping that the board members will understand that the kind of actions these people are taking are consistent with the kind of editing and commenting they have been making on this article. Tkguy (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response to Admin board regarding involved parties' and Phoenix-wiki comments: Please note that all accusations being made against me are not being substantiated here and are possibly being used to draw attention away from the issue of me being personally attacked. I already provided proof that an admin is aware that comments made to me were inappropriate, Royalguard11's acknowledgement that an inappropriate comment was made against Tkguy. Even User:Cool Hand Luke acknowledged that researching me was not appropriate and then does it himself. And then he marks the section under "WP:CIVIL—remember, comment on the content, not the contributer". But I can't see how this is can be accepted as behaving in a "responsible manner, as expected of an administrator" after he made significant entries encouraging this kind of behavior. Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Saranghae honey: So you create a sandbox to avoid community input and you accuse me of pushing a POV? And you initiated the 4th failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. Can you please substantiate your allegations that I am trying to push a POV? Seriously you keep accusing me of that but never ever provided actual proof. As for the stalking issue and personal attacks. Why are you trying to make it out like I am focused on your Sandbox and your discussion that it's ok to check my edits on the talk:Asian fetish? I pointed these things out to show that you are clearly working with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Cool Hand Luke. You clearly support user:Crotalus horridus personal attacks on me and his stalking of me off wikipedia. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Crossmr: I recommend all to read the content of User:Crossmr link. Be aware much of the references in it that user:Crotalus horridus makes to edits that I've made were some of the first editing I've done on wikipedia. As I am still, even now, new to all this. Even though I believe I explain very well the situation of the edit wars on the page. But still this arbitration is once again regarding PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME that were not being dealt with. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Cool Hand Luke: Typically, I believe, disparaging remarks should be rolled back from the pages. You had the opportunity to do this twice but did not. Since you made your own personal attacks on me and posted links to the asian forums on the talk page, I don't think you can say that this issue is moot. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Crotalus horridus: Can you please stay on topic? This is regarding your personal attacks on me. You make all these accusations and not one link to substantiate them. And I want all to know that you submitted the 3rd failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. As for my brush with the 3rr rule, well that was when I first started editing and two individuals, user:Kaitenbushi and user:Christopher Mann McKay tricked me into violating the rule. The admin realized this and reverted my block and blocked one of the other two, user:Kaitenbushi for violating the 3rr rule. They then blocked user:Christopher Mann McKay because apparently he voliated the 3rr rule on yet another page and was rewarded an extra long 48 hour block for his work on tricking me. Most of the story right here. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

User:Tkguy is a disruptive single-purpose account who exclusively edits articles related to Asiaphilia, Asian fetish, and related issues. By his own admission, he has an "obsession with proving the prevalence of asiaphilia." He has shown himself consistently unable to follow our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. The Asian fetish article has been protected twice recently, when the only real edit-warring was being instigated by Tkguy. Everyone else but him was discussing issues appropriately on the article talk page. Tkguy also has a very unclear understanding of Wikipedia policy on various other matters. He was blocked for violating the three-revert rule a while back, and unblocked early on the grounds that he didn't know about the rule. Above, he continues to show poor understanding by implying that there is something wrong about creating a sandbox in user space to continue to work on an article while it is protected. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice supports that contention.

It should be noted that Tkguy's forum posts show up very high on a Google search for his nickname. It's not as if I did any deep digging here. If he wished to retain anonymity, he could have chosen any other nickname he wanted.

No, it doesn't matter what Tkguy thinks as long as he abides by Wikipedia rules. But WP:NPOV and WP:V are two of our most important rules, and he has shown a repeated inability to follow them.

I urge Tkguy to withdraw this arbitration request. *** Crotalus *** 08:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Saranghae honey (talk · contribs)

Tkguy made no attempt at dispute resolution. If there was one, the proper consequence should have stopped Tkguy's edit warring and aggressive POV pushing at Asian fetish. He indeed is a single purpose account that has done little editing outside Asian fetish and Asiaphilia. Other editors worked cooperatively and even disagreed constructively except for Tkguy who ignored several Wikipedia policies including WP:CIVIL. I lost my patience towards him long, long ago for a good reason.

Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies which led to a post at AN/I which has lengthy yet only a partial list of Tkguy's hostile conduct to users who disagree with him. [81] Crotalus Horridus did no deep digging when he googled "Tkguy." It's actually the second page that shows his activities outside of Wikipedia. I was not sure if I could comment on his activities outside of Wikipedia, but how can I not pretend to see what was posted on the talk page of Asian fetish? I was indeed astonished by his comments outside of Wikipedia.

Tkguy attacks me for making a sandbox. What's wrong with that? Again, Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies. Not having to follow manual of style or a consensus is the purpose of having a sandbox while I did invite feedback from several editors. Tkguy needs to understand Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. The part of his complaint also revolves around spying or stalking. Looking at "user contributions" of a POV-pusher is not spying or stalking not to mention that he only edits two articles. Editing the only two articles that he happens to edit is not stalking. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs)

User is a manifest SPA.

I placed the incivility under a hat, which I find to be useful in discouraging future incivility. I didn't remove the comments, but neither did Tkguy, although I advised him he should feel free to remove remarks he felt were personal attacks. Eventually he did remove them, and no editor added them back to the talk page. This dispute is therefore moot. No other dispute resolution was attempted besides.

However, if Tkguy continues to edit war on the article once it's unlocked, I will press for RfC and/or community sanction. Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

As far as I can see Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · uploads) acted in a responsible manner, as expected of an administrator. The "Tkguy" section of the talk page does not look like a personal attack, though I can see how one would be upset by it — Tkguy is refered to as a single purpose account. Cool Hand Luke simply said:

Yep. SPA. User seems to be promoting a line of original research postulating that Asian American suicides, among other social ills, are caused by the Asian fetish. This is not a forum for original research. Moreover, user liberally accuses other editors of vandalism in support of racism. I encourage this user—and all users—to avoid personal attacks and original research. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a warning not to post original research or make personal attacks. He also acted sensibly on most other sections of the talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't believe you changed my arbitration request from "Unfettered Personal Attacks, Bullying, and Stalking on Asian fetish" to "Asian fetish". Tkguy (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's quite correct to. Evidence speaks for itself here. Case names simply identify cases, they don't specify the conduct issues of the dispute, nor do they 'explain' the nature of the dispute or specify possible feelings about it. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partially involved Crossmr (talk · contribs)

I don't have much to add, but feel this link is relevant to the issue here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

  • Decline. I see nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The issues here seem clearcut and have not reached the complexity which would be required for arbitration. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The Community can handle this situation. No need for ArbCom involvement. FloNight (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Flo. James F. (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.


Appeal against notice to ban for incivility by user Mrg3105

The action was taken under the premise of:
General restriction

11) Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.

I would like to appeal against this action and the finding of my incivility based on the following points:

1. My incivility was never explicitly stated by the administrator who imposed it despite a request to do so. Another administrator (Thatcher) simply suggesting the need for Dispute resolution, without considering that a 'request to move' is a form of dispute resolution.

2. Under some circumstances incivility is justified such as when the Wikipedia user is found to be using methods of argument during a discussion which are easily likened to abuse of logic, lying or propaganda, all of which contradict Wikipedia NPOV policy. The ruling is therefore largely the administrator's POV who may be unaware of the behaviour of the other party.

3. In order for the 'personal attack' to be personal, a person needs to be explicitly named. Since no such person was named in the cited evidence against me, the attack could only have been directed at the line of argument offered by the opposers of the 'proposal to move', which was in part lacking in supporting evidence, and therefore deceptive. In fact the proposition that I directed a personal attack contradicts my personal values that "one talks about ideas and not people"

4. If I am accused of assumptions of bad faith, then I submit that the action of the other party was in fact the precursor of the 'request for move' as a means of remedies in equity due to my inability to assume good faith given the action of renaming the article in the first place, which, without discussion, was tantamount to negation of good faith as per Wikipedia's policy that "Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism". In this case the points being attempted to be proven are that: a) the article is focused on places in the event name and not on the historical event itself, and b) that Romanian and European Union naming policy over-rides that of WP:UE, WP:MILMOS#NAME, and WP:ROR, for which I can find no evidence in Wikipedia policy.

5. That in any case, I could not be warned under the Digwuren enforcement as an "editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe" since the article is intended to be an NPOV description of of a military operation by an armed force which at one time could be claimed to have been present in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. It is not a topic related to Eastern Europe despite being situated in Eastern Europe in the same way that all discussion of Architecture will inevitably include Eastern Europe. This would require similar enforcements to be enacted every time any editor chose to document operations by the Soviet Army in any of these global regions should anyone fund them controversial, or any topic that might include Eastern Europe, which is a large majority of Wikipedia content.

I look forward to my user name being cleared of these accusations.

Thank you --mrg3105mrg3105 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyeverybody/Anynobody and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS

From the start it's important to understand that I am here to contribute, I can't boast WP:FA after WP:FA since the subjects I have the most knowledge about are controversial. As such they are difficult to edit into Featured shape. Nor is my edit count as high as our more prolific contributors, however as proof of my commitment I can point to over 250 free images created, enhanced or found and added to the project. (I'd guesstimate 85-90% are images I created or enhanced for the project, while the rest are simply Public Domain images found on government/military websites. I'll lowball my efforts and keep the number at 100 to make things easier for those not mathmatically inclined. 85% of 100 is 85. Many of them took more than a few hours of work and are used on several projects. (Essentially I'm also contributing to the Japanese, German, Hebrew, Vietnamese, Russian (in fact both of the two on this page are mine, the list goes on and includes five or six other languages. It also includes an image nominated for Featured status. I'm not trying to brag, but since people seem to think I'm only about trolling or gaming the system it's important to show that to be untrue. I wouldn't spend so much time helping out to turn around and troll someone while gaming the system.

The case itself was, I thought, going to be about the issue of people using Church of Scientology IPs and open proxies to edit Scientology related articles with a pretty clear view towards affecting the POV of said articles. I honestly thought that Bishonen bringing up the disagreement between Justanother and I was pretty unrelated to the case and that the arbcom would think the same thing. By the time it was clear that they didn't, I was being accused of harassment, thereby making any effort to show past, and more extensive, bad behavior on his part seem like confirmation of my harassment of him. It's very frustrating to have so many people assume bad faith on my part because a popular admin does.

For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother. The issue of my supposed harassment was recently brought up in the arbcom, then as now, nobody would give specifics about what was/was not harassment. Certainly reminding him that 3RR rules apply to everyone wouldn't be considered harassment, since it's true: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action, warned) If you read the thread itself it should be obvious that I simply wanted to warn him that as he had made the same mistake as the editor he was trying to get blocked. (Please note also that I created both the arbcom thread and the 3RR note in good faith, if I was acting in bad faith, why would I turn around and tell the arbcom about it? I also didn't ask for or insist on a block at any time.)

So I'm asking for the arbcom to either let me explain/address whatever evidence they decided warranted an assumption of bad faith on my part, or failing that allow me to present evidence of how any harassment I could have inflicted is minimized by similar behavior which he initiated first and with other editors (who no longer edit anymore). Why am I bringing this up now? Because Justanother has begun using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage where he is currently arguing against including sourced material about a person who's article was recently deleted but is also mentioned in said article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive12#User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz by accusing me of editing the wrong part of neutral reportage before other parts are added as the reason why it's inappropriate to talk about the Salt Lake Tribune's use of Neutral reportage to defeat Barbara Schwarz's defamation suit. He's also been posting on my talk page, which begs the question, if I harassed him, why come back for more?

I think the findings re him and I in the case should be dropped, and any future issues be dealt with through dispute resolution which was essentially skipped before. Going to arbcom for editor disputes in the context of an entirely separate issue seems to be pretty rare, except in this case. (Heck, we skipped Wikipedia:Requests for mediation entirely.) Anynobody 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Justanother (JustaHulk)

Leaving the issue of the appropriateness of Anyeverybody's (Anynobody or AN) attacks on me here and sticking strictly to the facts, I do want to respond to a couple of AN's misrepresentations here.

  1. Re: "For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:" That is a complete misread of my remark at WP:AE#Friendly reminder requested. The bad faith I was referring to was this:

    "AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me."

    That is bad faith. The other bit in that remark was clearly an answer to AN's previous question:

    "Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"

  2. AN accuses me of "using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage". That is a lie - I never tried to use the harassment restriction on AN to my own advantage and, in fact, went out of my way to not make the restriction a problem for him. I did not accuse him of violating it in this case until he brought it up on WP:AE and, even then I did not accuse him of violating it until he did so in a gross and obvious manner. As regards editing together, there is no reason why I would stop taking an interest in the representation of Barbara Schwarz here and if AN intends to continue adding Schwarz material then he can expect my continued interest and involvement. Again, I went out of my way to NOT make our disagreement in the article have anything to do with the harassment ruling and I repeatedly clarified for him that he is perfectly free to seek WP:DR on any issues related to article content that we may have. Gotta run now but that pretty well sums it up. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me If it ever was explained I honestly don't remember or didn't see it. Please assume good faith and show me where it was explained when/how my behavior crossed into the area of harassment. The examples I've cited are not out of context when discussing the difference between harassment and acceptable behavior. If Template:Multicol This:

  • 3/8 The attempted WP:RfC/U by myself, Smee and perhaps other editors who found themselves unable to resolve their disputes with him.
  • Answering a question about it posed by a neutral editor during my RfA

and

...is harassment...

If one assumes good faith I tried to resolve a dispute involving several editors through dispute resolution, requested admin tools to help with some backlogs and in the process answered a question, then asked for independent feedback, later asking uninvolved admins if it is a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

If one assumes bad faith, I'm not sure what they think I was doing because they'd have to assume I was out to attack him rather than resolve disputes. This doesn't describe the situation because I'd never intentionally set out to attack someone, since it doesn't actually solve anything and would actually work against me. Template:Multicol-break

...and...

Template:Multicol-break this:
*(Note, these diffs are Justanother posting his disputes regarding Smee's editing on WP:ANI/WP:AN3R and that none of them are about me. Why bring up his dealings with Smee up? To show that I'm not trying to attack him when I say other editors have had difficulty editing with him, and help explain why I felt the RfC/U was appropriate. Diffs before the RfC/U are underlined)*

...wasn't, what's the difference?

If one assumes good faith Justanother was simply being diligent about perceived violations of the rules regarding this editor. If one assumes bad faith, he was following an editor who was being recognized for adding material he found objectionable. Template:Multicol-end I honestly think the difference is that people do not assume good faith on my part, based on accusations by a popular admin who no longer seems to be editing here and didn't take the time to actually look at the conversation/context of what she cited as evidence. I never even asked that he be blocked, and have said numerous times that I don't want to see anyone banned. Even now I'm asking just that ordinary dispute resolution be used for future disagreements and am not and never have asked for him to be ruled against. Accusing me of editing under bad faith given these facts has been hard to come to grips with. Anynobody 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only specific finding against you was that you were prohibited from harassing Justanother. Another finding specifically said it implied nothing about your editing. As no-one is allowed to harass another user (see WP:HARASS) the effect is to specifically order you not to do something that you should not have been doing anyway. The article probation for all scientology articles affects you just as much as every other editor. In those circumstances I see no cause to interfere with the remedies in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that I'm not asking for article probation to be changed. Did you see this finding? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody I have been blocked twice for trying to find out more information about it, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans. Anynobody 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this submission and see no need for any clarification or modification of the remedies at this time. I suggest that you drop this matter and proceed with your editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining what in your review leads you to say that? Or, with all due respect, is this another comment you can't or won't explain? (If you're just backing up you know who then please say so.) Anynobody 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to strengthen the remedies against Anynobody. What we have in place does not seem sufficient to deter the constant low-level baiting and bad faith that he repeatedly demonstrates, such as the post above. Jehochman Talk 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent injunction against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [83] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [84] [85] [86] see edit summary [87] [88] see edit summary [89] [90] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD.[91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.[97] [98] [99] [100] [101] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

  • vile
  • hateful
  • besmirching Christian values
  • some pretty sick people posting
  • inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
  • racist and homophobic
  • poor moderation
  • victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [102] [103] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that "Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're stuck with this one, Brad. The previous article probation was advisory only, stating that the situation would be reviewed upon motion of an Arbitrator or request from an editor. After a very cursory review there is nothing in Eschoir's recent history that would be disruptive enough for a page ban in the absence of previous DR, and as you know community-enforced page bans are still somewhat novel. Thatcher 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly BryanfromPalatine, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

"Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Newyorkbrad said: "With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion." Eschoir has offered no comments about his editing history. I suggest that some explanation of his editing history is called for here, in light of the many troublesome diffs I've posted here. But Eschoir remains silent. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outing, harassment

Samurai Commuter placed links here to Freerepublic.com, linking to harassing and outing of Wikipedia editors here. I removed it and mailed oversight. It looks like there are other things like that on that message board. Is it appropriate for users to be linking there? Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the editor "Samurai Commuter" is the banned editor "BryanFromPalatine", based on the comments and actions on this page. See also this evidence in a current RFAR: here. The user has asked me to restore a modified version of his 'evidence' to this section, but I am disinclined to do so as I have mailed Oversight to have it removed for exposing personal information about other editors here. Lawrence Cohen 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of ArbCom evidence, claiming that I posted links to personal information about Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum, for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. Eschoir then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.
I posted two links to online court documents, proving that Eschoir's narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Wikipedia that took time to compile, and proved Eschoir's continued disruptive activity and edit warring. If privacy was really the issue, it would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and leave a pleasant note on my User Talk page. Instead, Lawrence Cohen blanked the entire section, reported me as a single purpose attack account, and had me blocked indefinitely. He is now refusing to restore the evidence section he deleted, or even discuss the matter. Please see his User Talk page.
I'd appreciate a ruling on this at ArbCom's convenience. By admitting that he is the real person in question, by prevaricating about the federal injunction against him, and by continuing his efforts to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter, Eschoir has opened the door to this discussion. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please send a copy of any information that you believe was wrongfully blanked to the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail. Please also respond to the assertion that you are the same individual as the banned user BrianFromPalatine. If you are, you are still entitled to have your concern with the article considered if you submit it by e-mail, but you should not be posting on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on User:Samurai Commuter's concerns, but the accounts 52 edits all seem to be related to this subject. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When there's a disagreement on content, we're asked to work it out on the article's Talk page. My reward for trying to do that is the suggestion that I'm an SPA. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, I have some info on this regarding BrionfromPalatine that you may want. It is nothing you can't get yourself, but since I have been involved with this page for a while I can give you an idea of the general situation if you would like. Email me if you would like that. Prodego talk 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please forward any relevant information that is not suitable for posting on-wiki to the Arbitration Committee mailing list (see WP:AC for address or e-mail to me for forwarding). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=185584407

Leave a Reply