Initiated by Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} at 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LM2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Second Quantization (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Xenophrenic
• Jweiss11
• LM2000
• Collect
• Jonotrain
• Second Quantization

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

AN/I 1 [1] 2[2]
BLP/N RfC 1 RfC 2

Xenophrenic alleges BLP violations: [3] [4][5], and he uses a “wife-beating” analogy [6]
Chomsky quote: Deletes the Criticisms section [7], removing the blockquote formatting in the process, and adds a promotional quote from Harris’ blog (Harris claiming he disagrees with the criticisms. Then he claims that there is a copyvio, and subsequent attempts to paraphrases quote obfuscate and render it unrecognizable. I request that BLP claims be taken to BLP/N.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harris_(author)&diff=next&oldid=646958761]
Adds “attacking” characterization, and disjointedly misquotes articles on Chomsky by adding "the state religion ... where we must support the violence and atrocities of our own state, because it's being done for good reasons", which appears in neither article, but is close (not exact) to a statement Chomsky makes in the video posted in an “UPDATE III” to the article.[8]
I add a “Political” subsection under “Views”, delete the “attacking” paragraph and restore the blockquote.[9]
Misrepresenting sources: Eskowhere
Relevant quotes:[10], [11]
He targeted this[12], and tries to add two other religions without supporting sources [13] to dampen impact of statements on Islam (also supported by misrepresented Eskow piece).
Adds self-serving blog posts:[14]
Adds quote to bolster self-serving blog statement.[15][16]
Removes expanded Political section.[17]
Further gaming in revert of expanded Political section, claiming “ref formatting, punctuation and spelling corrections”.[18]
Jweiss11
Accuses Greenwald of libel, indicative of advocacy. [19]
Conflates religion and politics, and makes a compound personal attack accusing me of having a COI, “you seem to have some investment in advancing the industry of Sam Harris-smearing here on Wikipedia”. [20]
Starts new section about “Political” section [21] “…the section serves not to expand on Harris's views, but, rather to serve as a repository for criticism, some of it likely distorting and defamatory”.
States that attributed Beattie (academic, feminist theologian w/BBC program) quote is “certainly defamatory”, but doesn’t bring it to BLP/N. [22]
Removes refcite to secondary source, leaving only primary source in relation to self-serving statement that relates to contentious issue.[23]
LM2000
First substantial edit adds slew of new sources and cheerleader-like statements from Harris supporters, not one of which addresses a specific topic or publication.[24]
Second edit removes “signed” blockquote introduced by Jonotrain (talk · contribs), an SPA.[25]
Third substantial edit removes Political section, deleting Wade Jacoby and Hakan Yavuz (scholarly journal) and Salon article by Lean w/Chomsky quote.[26]
Self-reverts, claiming he sees there is Talk discussion, and claims he won’t “fight” for the changes.[27]
Jonotrain
Expands on Greenwald, adds quote from Sayeed piece in Mondoweiss linked to by Greenwald.[28]
Block formats and “signs” long Greenwald quote.[29]
He reverts LM2000’s self-revert of his deletion of Jonotrain’s edits.[30]
Collect
Started distracting threads[31]
[32]
[33] and joined an edit war over eminently well-sourced material in lead, with an edit summary unsupported by sources.[34]

• Note that is was Xenophreic that first brought the possibility of arbitration up[35].
  • It also appears that Second Quantization (talk · contribs) wants to join this case, so I've added him (hopefully not out-of-process).[36][37][38]

@DGG: Not sure about what you mean by "non-NPOV material" per se, but yes, NPOV is a good policy, here's one relevant essay section.[39]
@Thryduulf: Content disputes and continual bad faith editing that admins have not acted on. The RfC's are, to a large extent, rehashes of discussion that met with WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI, and represent a form of gaming by diversion from the actual discussion of the sources and an attempt to assert a local consensus subverting content policy, coupled with a refusal to take recurrent assertions to BLP/N after the first was rejected as not being a BLP violation. Note that as I have reached the 500 word limit, I didn't point out BLP disputes on other articles, particularly articles where Jews have been involved as subject(of article) or object(of criticism), but since Collect has raised the issue vis-a-vis Sayeed, see the Joe Klein BLP and the Neoconservatism article, particularly with respect to the issue of Dual loyalty. Of note are BLP/N[40], BLP RfC[41], [42] [43]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NativeForeigner: I wouldn't object if there was improvement, but there's only so much banging one's head--even a hard head like me--against the wall anybody can take. I continue to post impeccable sources as I find them, but since it seems that there has been socking and that there advocacy is apparent, etc., I'm doubtful. Note that there are conspicuous absences in statements from parties. I was able to eventually improve the Joe Klein and Neoconservatism articles, but that was daunting enough. And though Collect is part of this, too, at least he didn't delete the "Political" section. This is a conundrum, at least from where I stand.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NativeForeigner: OK, I'll withdraw this request, and see if the two AN/I threads, one which BMK has re-opened, can be integrated.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the very first mention of "cognitive biases" I've seen. The notion that academics and other RS "misconstrue" statements that "run afoul of a wide array of people across the political spectrum", and that our job as Wikipedia editors is to exclude such "defamatory" comments, etc., is symptomatic of tendentious editing related to advocacy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum of 500 words (you can use http://www.wordcounter.net/ to check). You should use diffs and links to support the case you are making, and try to convince the arbitrators that the dispute requires their intervention. You are not trying to exhaustively prove your case at this time; if your case is accepted for arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.

• ATTENTION:*

• Once you have entered all required information into this template, preview and then save it. It will place the request in a new section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
• You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using {{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}.
• Once you have done this provide the diff of the notification in the area provided.

• If you have any questions or problems please ask a clerk for help or post on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

-->

I commend the committee to review the content of the material at hand in order to see which editors were proposing material which might run afoul of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:BLP, noting that the OP here appears quite unwilling to try for a consensus for what he wants, whilst a number of editors (>7) who are not known to act as any sort of claque in one's wildest imagination demur with his edits. Look at it this way -- Xenophrenic and I agree.

Examine the number of edits by each editor for the material, and consider the likelihood that this action is an acknowledgement that he dare not try seeking WP:CONSENSUS by starting an RfC (as recommended) or even taking part in RfCs by making a !vote in them.

The OP's first talk page edit was on [44] 11 February 2015, less than two weeks ago. Scarcely time enough to do much? An RfC from last year was long closed - and he wished to debate it when the result was not close, alas. Kindly note the edit history for the talk page, and be amazed.

Then on to the actual BLP, which is,indeed, subject to WP:BLP and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines "3.Identification and categorization of people is bound by Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs). To add content on a person's religion, sexuality and gender variance you need reliable sourcing."

I guess I became editorially involved after this edit of 15 Feb [45]

"Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

On 16 Feb, I started Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Sam_Harris_.28author concerning that edit. In that section, the current OP posted "The only assertion that this thread has to make is related to whether Wikipedia can categorize Harris as a Jew. Harris had been categorized as a Jew four times over before Collect removed those with this edit earlier today." which as the discussion ensued was not a position supported by others at that noticeboard.

I also started an RfC on that same issue at the BLP talk page: Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC where six edtors oppose the usage, and the OP here did not opine.

He has tried to insert the same or similar material 16 times in the past week alone.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sam_Harris_.28author shows examples of threats ("This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom") civility issues ("you have a competence issue with respect to the article") etc.

[46] As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. from the OP who quite appears to have written enough for ten editors on the article talk page, alas.

And the maraschino cherry: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Tendentious_editing.2C_removal_of_well-sourced_material.2C_etc..2C_at_Sam_Harris which would lose so much by being quoted. Collect (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flying Jazz -- this case has nought to do with "American Left" and I am puzzled why you appear to think it does. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) @Arbs Please examine [47] to see if a motion by you here concerning such behaviour is proper. Collect (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never posted anywhere like this before. This isn't about BLP, but it is about User:Collect. I found that the first citation in the lead at American Left referred to an outdated preface that should (in my view) have consequences for the entire article, but there seem to be major problems with the talk page that prevent consensus or even conversation about the situation. Collect addressed my finding in the talk page at [48] in such a superficial way instead of engaging with text and ideas and with me. When I made the change at [49], he reverted with the comment at [50] "revert Bold edit per BRD without prejudice as this is being discussed and a unilateral major change is likely unwise" with no further discussion. I clomp around, write snarky things, make big mistakes. I feel like I'm being tag teamed there. I don't have evidence in diffs. I'm starting to not care. I don't expect applause for going to the library to check something, but I don't expect "Bold edit per BRD without prejudice" either. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect -- I didn't mean to puzzle you. It's not about American Left either. I think that sometimes simple actions by an editor in one article may help with decisions about complicated actions by the same editor in other articles. I admit that it might have been a terrible mistake in process for me to post here before going through other process, but I honestly don't know. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above by Flying Jazz has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

After two weeks on the talk page, two RfCs, two threads on AN/I, and one on BLP/N, nobody has spoken in support of Ubikwit's edits. Ubikwit has sought out the comments of the commentators most fervently opposed to this subject and has pasted their most critical quotes into the BLP. The result is an unbalanced mess of an already bloated article which violates NPOV and DUE. Ubikwit had been an ardent defender of a large "Criticisms" section, a clear violation of WP:CSECTION, when the section was removed he accused users of "whitewashing" and subsequently split the criticism from that section into two other sections, "On Islam" and "Political". The problem with this is that with the exception of two block quotes from the subject himself, the remainder of the "Political" section was compiled of nothing but total condemnation of the subject by commentators who disagreed with him on his stance on Islam.[51] My addition of Harris "cheerleaders" was an attempt to achieve NPOV,[52] comments from Harris supporters still remain confined to one paragraph while Ubikwit's version saw comments from Harris' critics stretch several paragraphs and block quotes.

Dealings with Ubikwit have been less than pleasant. You can see detailed accounts of his personal attacks in the subsection of the first AN/I thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Tendentious_editing.2C_removal_of_well-sourced_material.2C_etc..2C_at_Sam_Harris#update, no administrator intervened by the time that list was compiled as the thread was at the top of the list at that point. During that thread, which he had started, he had been warned that this was a content dispute and wasn't an issue for AN/I, making this current discussion all the more confounding. Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning. Ubikwit's interpretations of basic policy are novel at best. He thinks that WP:RS is the most superior policy and as long as something is sourced it can go into the encyclopedia, NPOV and UNDUE be damned, this had turned the article into a coatrack. In a moment which seems surreal in retrospect, he accused Jweiss11 of WP:OR for critiquing his edits on the talk page. Ubikwit has never bothered to hide his contempt for the subject (openly referring to him as a PUNDIT) and had denied that the subject had received anything but entirely negative commentary until Jweiss and I found ample sources to the contrary. He has described practically everybody participating in the talk page discussion as lacking WP:COMPETENCE, including Johnuniq, who hasn't been invited here.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam Harris (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been on my watchlist for years and I noticed the recent excitement. It looks like a pretty ordinary content dispute to me, although there are some unusual aspects: this is a dispute between one editor and several others; and there has been a high level of tension in talk-page comments from the start. I confidently asserted that "ArbCom will have nothing to do with this garden-variety disagreement among editors on an article talk page", but DGG is proving me wrong. I'm posting to remove any doubt as to whether I have seen this case. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initially didn't have much to add here because LM2000 has already succinctly summarized this incident and my sentiments about it. But now that my heretofore absence has been described as "conspicuous" by Ubikwit, I'll say a few words. Let me start with the specific points Ubikwit has enumerated in reference to me.

First, per libel and advocacy, we all need to understand that the subject of the article in question, Sam Harris, is a person who has made statements that have run afoul of a wide array of people across the political spectrum. His criticism of ideas and behaviors is often an examination of cognitive biases, and it's precisely cognitive biases that induce many others, including notable people writing in established, reliable venues, to misconstrue his ideas, attack positions he does not hold, and make defamatory comments about him. Our job as Wikipedia editors is sift through all of this and make sure that the most notable commentary is summarized in a neutral fashion.

I've already commented on the alleged conflation of religion and politics here and here.

My alleged "compound personal attack" was simply an assessment of Ubikwit's editing, which appeared to concertedly violate principles of neutrality.

My edit to start a new "Political" section, titled "Social and economic politics", was an effort to isolate Harris's commentary on political elements that were not already covered in other sections like "On Islam" and "On Judaism" so that those could be properly expanded without introducing redundancies to the article.

I didn't bring the issue about the Beattie quote to BLP/N because it didn't occur to me that might be necessary. We already had at least one RFC open at the article talk page and an open thread at WP:AN/I on the general matter at hand.

I removed the refcite to "Atheists for Cheney" because it didn't appear to support the content that preceded it, "Harris is a self-proclaimed liberal, and states that he supports raising taxes on the wealthy, decriminalizing drugs, and the rights of homosexuals to marry." The only relevant passage in Kaplan's article is the phrase "self-professed liberal", which I missed the first time I looked at the article. Even know, upon closer review, it seems to be a snide remark, not solid, factual evidence.

I see that a number of arbitration committee members have already declined this case on the basis of it being a content dispute. But DGG has noted that this is also a matter of editor behavior, so I'll close with that issue. Besides his obvious flouting of neutrality guidelines, Ubikwit has consistently accused other editors of "gaming the system" while at the same time misunderstanding or intentionally misconstruing other principles like WP:OR; see LM2000's recap of our "surreal" moment above. He's also attacked the competence of just about every editor who has disagreed with him on this matter. His behavior in this incident is probably something that should be subject to administrative review at some point. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ubikwit's last comment here is yet another example of his tendency to misconstrue and misappropriate various Wikipedia guidelines and project his transgressions of guidelines onto other editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I expressed an interest in joining a case I wasn't even aware of. I have no interest in spending time on this, Second Quantization (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: since this request appears to be heading towards being declined, I've undone my earlier closing of the AN/I thread at WP:ANI#Sam Harris (author). BMK (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• tentatively Accept although this is in one sense a dispute over the appropriate content for this article, the conduct of editors inserting grossly non-NPOV material in a BLP is also a matter of editor behavior. I'm a little surprised it has gotten this far without some appropriate action being taken by neutral administrators, but I think we might want to accept and resolve a BLP dispute of this sort more readily than we might another type of article. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • @DGG: I've updated the tally above to count this as an "accept" vote, please change it if I interpreted wrongly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline I accept Yunshui's argument that the community can move faster than we can. I should have realized that myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. This is a content dispute between a single editor and other editors. The two RFCs listed above both date from less than a week ago and are still open. The latest thread on ANI was closed only due to this request, before most admins had had a chance to comment. I see nothing here that cannot be sorted by normal community processes far quicker than we could conduct a case. Indeed a case would likely lead to any BLP violations lasting longer than they otherwise would. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline As Thryduulf points out, there are two open RfCs and the ANI route has not been exhausted. And I agree the community should be able to handle it faster than we can. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Quite possible this will improve before we have a chance to get the case pages set up, let alone get community input and draft. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ubikwit: Go through community channels. If the dispute continues despite this, bring it back, and this is something I'd be willing to look at. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline This looks to me like a content dispute that, due to BLP issues, really needs to be resolved faster than ArbCom can move. I'd recommend reopening the ANI thread - or starting a new one - and getting the community involved instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 03:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I believe this is a dispute which can still be solved by the community. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per the above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline With this being filed very few days after the initial ANI threads, there has not been enough time for the community to act. I would encourage parties if they have comments about other parties, to back them up with diffs as they post them at ANI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]