Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EffK (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 20 November 2005 (→‎Statement by party 2: Add links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Involved parties

Most prominantly User:Kevin baas, although others are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

On his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

This dispute has been ongoing for well over a year, and is a dispute of wilful POV pushing and revert warring. Among the contributors is Kevin Baas, who narrowly escaped a previous arbcom case. The issue has appeared on the mailing list, and numerous editors have already weighed in.

Statement by Snowspinner

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and its associated sub-articles have been drowning in original research, POV, and edit warring since their creation. So far an astonishing 50,000 words have been written on the matter, all meticulously sourced. However, the sourcing is overwhelmingly towards nonnotable and POV sources, and the articles have been tightly controlled by their creators so as to stifle any attempts at dissent, including addition of NPOV and original research tags. The result has been to keep mostrously bad work on Wikipedia that stands in violation of numerous policies. Most flagrant in this has been User:Kevin baas, who has added copyvio material to the article and persistantly refused to acknowledge the existence of an NPOV dispute, defending all sources, including things such as treating Ben Cohen, the founder of Ben and Jerry's, as a notable source on election fraud, the use of partisan blogs as a major source, and the production of original research through novel aggregation of facts. Simply put, the articles have grown unmanagably bad, and none of the tools offered to editors are making a significant effort in fixing them - I ask for the arbcom to put some rules on articles that will allow editors invested in NPOV to do the gut-editing these articles need without sparking yet another revert war. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment

I would think that [1], Several of [2], [3], [4] (Particularly the second), and some variation on the "cite sources" policy, although none of the listed principles apply.

Particular tactics of stonewalling and edit warring that seem to me greivously offensive are the removal of NPOV tags despite a well-stated dispute (I did not revert war this point) as with [5]. (Note that a list of every problematic citation has been on the talk page for quite a while now). Also problematic is the insistence on leaving bad information in place until it is fixed instead of removing badly sourced and POV material and reconstructing the article from there - in other words, an insistence on leaving the article in its POV and bad form until the task of creating a "perfect" article is finished. Examples of this mentality are at [6] and [7]. Further problematic is the usage of a GAO report as direct source material for the article - paragraphs were copied wholesale into the article. This is not copyvio (The GAO report is public domain), but it's still the importation of original research, and the entire thing was quoted to a Wired Magazine article instead of directly to the report.

Aggressively reverting all attempts to tag an article with a dispute tag or to remove material that is sourced to extremist blogs and ice cream moguls is a violation of policies. Since it's a dispute with quite a few editors, an article content RfC would be most appropriate, which consists of a link to the article - two VfDs on the entire block of articles and a mailing list post have clearly directed enough outside editors. As is usually the case with situations like this, the outside editors made a noble effort, got reverted, and wandered off to do other things.

That enough specific evidence of policy issues? Phil Sandifer 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred

I do not think it is primarily a content dispute - the case it most resembles is the first Lyndon LaRouche case - in fact, the central issue with the provided sources (Reliance on mutually self-referential sources from a minor and extremist point of view) is identical in both cases. But it is, to my mind, a dispute over the application of several policies - NPOV, NOR, as well as article ownership. It's certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with by the arbcom before - see [8] [9] [10] [11] and [12] for examples of cases that have similar relationships to content. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the reliability of sources remains unsettled. Unreliable sources may not be used, reliable sources may be, but the location of the dividing line is uncertain. It may depend on context. Fred Bauder 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [13] - at least my first post in that thread, in which I go over all 68 of the sources. Among the things being used are Green Party press releases, geocities pages, webforum threads, blog posts, and several citations to Michael Moore, all made without crediting the claims in any sort of "Michael Moore alledges" way. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carbonite

The main problem with these articles (see Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also for a mostly complete list) is that they grew extremely fast and were quickly considered "owned" by a tiny group of editors. Attempts to remove even the most trivial of information are usually met with reverts and demands to justify all changes. I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept arbitration on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/1)

  • Recuse. Raul654 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The Committee is not your mother. There is not enough substance to this. James F. (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, without prejudice. Come back when you have a better statement of what conduct is violating what policy. Conclusive pleadings will not be accepted. May I suggest a RfC? Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that you are asking us to engage in a policy debate Fred Bauder 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone

Involved parties

I request a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, this very step has been tried by Ted Wilkes it seems. He has tried to RfAr Fred Bauder over this all. I would like to get a wiki-restraining order between Onefortyone and the two others. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 2

The filer of this RfAr has taken no steps towards any sort of dispute resolution or mediation and contrary to the template instructions, has declined to explain why he thinks such efforts would be presumably fruitless. Meanwhile, 141 is currently on probation for abusive editing practices and tactics. I was mistaken in my initial impression that he'd been prohibited from editing celebrity articles because I misinterpreted some related edit summaries before before being contacted by Fred Bauder and reading the arbcom decision for myself. After I was contacted by Fred Bauder that single time, I never touched the articles again. Aside from Fred Bauder, nobody has ever meaningfully contacted me about my behaviour towards 141 in the past. I think it's because few really care about the inclusion of unsupported gossip in celebrity articles... it is rather boring, truth be told. Anyway I'm always open to helpful suggestions in these efforts to stabilize the articles involved.

Arbcom members are respectfully requested not to conflate past issues concerning 141 with my recent attempts to explain Ted Wilkes' long and extremely unpopular RfAr against Fred Bauder on the project talk page. Given the timing of this RfAr, I'm convinced that the filer has included me in it as backhanded punishment for my commentary concerning Ted Wilkes' above-mentioned RfAr. I have informed the filer that this is a blatant, abusive breach of WP policy and that I am deeply unhappy about it. This RfAr is not necessary since any active admin or bureaucrat can contact me on my talk page and politely ask me to desist from any given behaviour and I more than likely will.

As for User:Calton, with whom I cannot remember having had any contact in the past, readers will please note that I began using metaphors (which he cites below) only after he and others had begun directing sarcasm at me on this project's talk page. I was trying to lightheartedly diffuse that by repeating back their metaphors myself in my replies. For example, Calton was the first to use the signal-to-noise-ratio metaphor, as a reference to wordiness. Later, he posted the following note to me, which I think speaks for itself.

I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. But you ask Fred and others to grasp very long words by Ted. This make no sense. This called "double standard." You use long words wrong (like "vandalism") even when people tell you it is wrong. You call people "trolls" for when they say you are wrong. This called "bad faith."
I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. I say I will write with big letters and short words. I say I will send to you so you can grasp sense. You still not grasp sense but throw more dirt, so I make more clear now. See?
Where can I mail notes to you? I will use as many stamps as I need. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across the encyclopedia I will no longer be participating in this project. Wyss 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

User:Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Reply_by_Onefortyone. Significantly, user Wyss and Ted Wilkes are frequently accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, a liar, a troll, of fabricating texts, etc. See Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, [14], etc. etc. Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. He deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See [20] and [21]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted by him. See [22]. Wyss accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [23] and [24]. Both Ted Wilkes and Wyss are denigrating all books and articles I have used for my Wikipedia contributions. They are constantly reverting my edits, which are supported by several independent, and published, sources, presumably because these sources are not in line with their personal view. For instance, they have repeatedly called reputed biographer Gavin Lambert, which was one of my sources, a gossip book writer, referring to a positive Guardian review which actually said "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also Talk:Gavin_Lambert#Lambert_the_insightful_chronicler_of_Hollywood. Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#3RR_Violation. Significantly, another user stated on the Talk:Elvis Presley page: "what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something 'bad' about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the 'system' prevents those things from staying there for too long." See [25]. There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits. The blanket reversions continue. Recently, contributions by administrator FCYTravis were also reverted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See [35], [36], [37] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions. Onefortyone 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now providing diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of harrassing Onefortyone after arbitration closed on 3 November 2005:

  • On 6 November, Ted Wilkes falsely claimed that I had violated probation. He says, "I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions here and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. See Talk:Elvis_Presley#Violation_of_probation_by_User:Onefortyone.
  • Since 8 November, Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Gavin Lambert article referring to the Arbitration Committee ruling. See [38], [39], [40], [41]. Wyss was even asking in his edit summary, "why hasn't this user been blocked as per the arbcom ruling?" Administrator FCYTravis reinstated most parts of my edits (see [42]), but his contributions were also repeatedly reverted by Ted Wilkes. See [43] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions.
  • Since 7 November, there were also numerous reverts by Ted Wilkes and Wyss of my contributions to the Nick Adams page. See [44], [45], [46]. Wyss falsely claimed in his edit summary that he was reverting "edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". See [47]. Ted Wilkes even removed the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [48], [49].
  • Since 8 November, both Ted Wilkes and Wyss were reverting my contributions to the James Dean article. See [50], [51], [52], [53]. Wilkes also reverted the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [54], [55]

Here are some diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these cases of harrassment after they occurred:

On 18 November 2005, User:Wyss still accused me on his talk page of having used the rumours section of an article "as a wedge from which to seed Elvis Presley with Google-friendly keywords which would lead to tabloid books by David Brent." See [65]. Such an absurd accusation clearly shows that Wyss is not really willing to put an end to the edit war with me. Onefortyone 21:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Calton

I find Wyss' statement that he'll knock off his misapplication of Onefortyone's probation if asked by an admin to be more than a little disingenuous, considering

  • that he HAS been notified by an admin, Fred Bauder. [66]
  • that he is being notified of his misapprehension of the probation by one of the people who actually crafted it, so therefore might be expected to have first-hand knowledge of what it means.
  • that he falsely characterizes Fred Bauder's post as a threat of ArbCom, since what it actually says is I think [Onefortyone's] complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case, which is a (in my opinion accurate) characterization of Wyss's behavior and its potential consequences.

--Calton | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum: I'll note that Wyss's addition doesn't respond to s single one of the points I raised, in addition to throwing in an out-of-context quote. He left off the preceding posts, whereby he, despite claiming that the ArbCom members are expected to plow through all 3,000 words of Ted Wilkes' request below and sift for the nuggets of meaning...

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that should be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...he then, in groundlessly questioning my qualification to comment (...have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?), he professes to not understand my simple 92-word answer (Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post) AND its bullet-pointed follow-up.

In other words, he's being disingenuous and evasive, and it appears to be his normal operating mode. He certainly lacks any standing to complain about sarcasm, given his liberal use of it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:FuelWagon re wyss wilkes and onefortyone

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Please provide diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of "harrassing" onefortyone after arbitration closed. (A brief look at the statement by onefortyone shows that most diffs of alleged bad behaviour occur in September or October.) Then please provide diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these alleged cases of harrassment after they occurred. No, a request for arbitration by Wyss or Wilkes against Fred Bauder does not satisfy either an example of harrassment against onefortyone or an attempt to resolve said harrassment.

Furthermore, FredBauder is far too involved with these editors to accept or reject this request for arbitration against Wyss and Wilkes. Fred should have recused himself from Wilkes's RFA against him, and he should clearly recuse himself from this one. That he accepted this RFA against Wilkes and Wyss without a single diff showing either editor actually harassing onefortyone or a single diff showing anyone actually trying to resolve the alleged behaviour is telling.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, to the point that numerous editors have gotten emotionally involved. And I mean "numerous". And I don't mean "everyone you percieve to be the enemy here". Given a complete lack of evidence of misbehaviour, a complete lack evidence of any real attempt to resolve the alleged misbehaviour, and the acceptance by a member of arbcom who has a clear conflict of interest, I call a time out and a cooling off period. Everyone gets to go to their respective corners and chill out for a while. Because this is looking far more like someone is getting railroaded than any sort of legitimate attempt to resolve a real dispute. FuelWagon 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(update) user onefortyone has provided some diffs that have occurred since the arbcom case has closed. All the dates for the diffs occur in November, so I'm just going to provide the diffs with just the date of the month in them. This is what it looks like when laid out sequentially.

evidence of disputed behaviour: 88899910101012121213

attempts to resove dispute: 11 1113131313131313131313 16

So, pretty much all the diffs of disputed behaviour occurred before anyone attempted to resolve the dispute. The two attempts to resolve on the 11th [67] [68] were both by the same person, JackofOz, which doesn't meet the RfC requrement and they're fairly indirect attempts. Assuming you count those attempts, you're looking at a total of four diffs of alleged harrassment that occurred on or after the 11th 12121213. I don't know how much of a stickler arbcom is, but four edits doesn't seem to warrant their attention. The serious attempts to resolve the dispute seem to have occurred on teh 13th, when Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13 (Wyss or Wilkes or both cited the arbcom ruling in some of their edits that are cited as alleged harrassment. I don't know what the ruling was, but it would seem that whatever Kelly told them, plus multiple attempts to resolve the issue, cleared things up and resolved whatever problem existed). There are no diffs of alleged harrassment provided that occur after the 13th. Personally, I would declare that the attempts to resolve the dispute on the 13th, did in fact, resolve the dispute. Can we move on now? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

EffK, formerly known as Famekeeper

Involved parties

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Defendant's response shows that he is aware of the request. Robert McClenon 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A user conduct Request for Comments was posted in July 2005. The link has been deleted from the user conduct RfC page, but the RfC itself is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. The RfC summarizes the previous steps that were taken prior to posting the RfC.

Statement by party 1

The RfC contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Statement by party 2

Concurrent to this RfA I posted [[69]] my sole disputant, [[70]] ,[[71]],[[72]]User:Str1977 - [[73]],[[74]],[[75]], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false mediator [[76]] ,[[77]],[[78]] , [[79]] ,[[80]] ,[[81]] , [[82]]. See :[[83]] , updated talk at [[84]]

McClenon does not understand , [[85]],[[86]],[[87]][[88]], [[89]] the sources [[90]] of my bulk contributions [[91]][[92]],[[93]],[[94]],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[[95]], and WP corrections , [[96]] ,[[97]][[98]], [[99]] , nor my real disputant : [[100]],[[101]] ,[[102]][[103]]([[104]] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [[105]],[[106]]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: [[107]] ,[[108]], has accepted the gist of my sources [[109]] ,and NPOV [[110]]. I believe that WP has finally enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I have repaired serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner [[111]] ,[[112]] ,[[113]],[[114]], [[115]]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem[[116]] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here [[117]],[[118]] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [[119]] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world [[120]] at large [[121]], [[122]] , [[123]] from Wikipedia , following from my demands that [[124]] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless [[125]], [[126]], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker [[127]],[[128]] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [[129]][[130]] [[131]] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Str1977 started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [[132]].

All these users should be admonished .

This [[133]] [[134]] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism , [[135]] ,[[136]] , of source [[137]][[138]],[[139]] something reflected in greater cyberspace . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulate Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV . Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

  • that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
  • that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
  • that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
  • that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fred Bauder

Involved parties


Summary

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was created under the authorization of Jimmy Wales and not only is Fred Bauder's conduct in carrying out his duties with the Arbitration Committee extremely important, it is powerful position that influences policy and sets precedents. His actions can profoundly affect not only the conduct and attitudes of Wikipedia contributors to, but Wikipedia's credibility through the impression and attitude of non-participants from the media, scholastic institutes, or other interested parties from the public at large. As such, persons serving on the Arbitration Committee must be subjected to a higher level of review. While I do not believe we should ever demand anyone reveal their background as a condition of serving on the Arbitration Committee, but in a case where someone presents professional credentials for appointment or election to the Arbitration Committee, then their past professional conduct from the public record is of extreme importance in determining their suitability to hold office. Anybody can edit at Wikipedia, but to be given the power to sit in judgment of the actions and ideas of others and effect policy, requires the utmost of integrity. It is perfectly normal and quite proper for the other members of the Arbitration Committee to acquiesce to the opinions of someone calling themselves a retired lawyer and, by his own admission (above), to date Fred Bauder has written the lion's share of the proposals for the arbcom.

Since October 31, 2002, Fred Bauder has asserted on his User page that he is a "retired lawyer." Mr. Bauder's Talk pages reveal that a number of Wikipedians have consulted him in his capacity as a "lawyer" or as a "retired lawyer." Fred Bauder is in fact not a retired lawyer, he is forbidden to practice law by the Colorado Supreme Court. As seen here in the Supreme Court record, Fred Bauder was disbarred in 1997 and has never been reinstated. In 1999, the Supreme Court affirmed his disbarment and that court order remains in full force and effect as a result of his failure to comply with Colorado law. The Court document states that Fred Bauder was disbarred in accordance with the American Bar Association regulations because he intentionally or knowingly violated the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession. The case record states he was found guilty of extremely serious charges including complete disdain for the justice system. Among the things the Supreme Court ordered so as to protect the public from conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice was the findings that:

  • that Fred Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(c);
  • that Fred Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado;
  • that Fred Bauder was engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice;
  • that Fred Bauder failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation;
  • that Fred Bauder ignored the disciplinary proceedings;
  • that Fred Bauder has failed to meet the Court's requirement that he demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law;


On 22:12, November 13, 2005, for the benefit of clarification, I asked Fred Bauder here on his Arbitration Committee Candidate question and answer page the following:

Exactly as he did with the Supreme Court of Colorado, Fred Bauder showed complete disdain for an essential part of the Arbitration Committee candidate assessment process and ignored this request for information. By withholding vital information about his claim to professional credentials, Fred Bauder deliberately misled Wikipedians and jeopardized Wikipedia's crucial efforts to fulfill Mr. Wales attempt to make Wikipedia credible and reliable.

Mr. Bauder is prohibited by a Supreme Court order from practicing law in the State of Colorado but has done so from his Colorado based computer, admitting to practicing law here saying, "I will try from time to time to contribute regarding matters which I am able to with respect to questions raised as I did in the question of the Pablo Picasso copyrights."

When the Supreme Court of Colorado declares that Mr. Bauder is unfit to practice law and that his conduct is injurious to the safety of the public, then he has no place sitting in judgment of others on the Arbitration Committee. On July 14, 1997, the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado grievance committee publicly censured Fred Bauder "for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client." - See People v. Bauder , 941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997). Mr. Bauder editing at Wikipedia is one thing because his views can be reversed, but serving on the powerful Arbitration Committee is quite another. With someone who believes it is acceptable to hire women to work in prostitution, how many female contributors coming to Wikipedia would be comfortable being judged by that person in arbitration on any of a wide range of women's issues such as morality, human rights and other extremely important topics? And corollary to that, how many people reading those articles would ever accept them as being credible?

At User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5#Sorry, Fred, User:Jguk brought up the disbarment issue and asked Fred Bauder to step aside as an Arbitrator. Mr. Bauder replied:

  • I don't agree as the underlying matter is payment of costs not something that relates to honesty. Fred Bauder 12:19, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because "shooting the messenger" happens so often at Wikipedia, when User:Jguk voiced his legitimate objections about the propriety of Fred Bauder serving on the Arbitration Committee, Jguk was ganged up on by a small group and attacked for his bringing up the subject. Fred Bauder's reply was a fabrication as in fact the miniscule amount of money at issue vis-à-vis the loss of a twenty-year career and a public censure, was for adjudicated costs after Fred Bauder refused to obey an order to appear before a disciplinary hearing and was found guilty by the Colorado Supreme Court grievance committee and publicly censured for his dishonest conduct in violating the laws and rules of the Supreme Court of Colorado:

Fred Bauder refused to obey an order to appear for a hearing into charges of an extremely serious violation of misconduct and the suspension of his right to practise law was temporarily set at a standard thirty days pending a sentencing following the full hearings. However, the interim suspension becomes permanent by court order as a way to protect the public until Fred Bauder obeys the order and appears before the court where the facts and evidence against him will be disclosed in their entirety. At that hearing the Court order states he then must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law pursuant to which lifetime disbarment or other fixed term of suspension is then permanently set. By not showing up for his disciplinary hearing, Mr. Bauder avoided disclosure and an examination of all the facts surrounding his illegal actions. As such, we do not know why he was willing to forfeit his career and accept a public censure and who and what it was that Fred Bauder did not want revealed.

The idea that any man would attempt to convince a woman to work in prostitution is abominable, but for a lawyer entrusted with information from a client during divorce proceedings (protected from all others via lawyer/client privledge) that includes their income and financial situation, to then solicit the client's wife for prostitution is one of the most egregious violations imaginable. Utilizing a client's confidential information and then communicating with the opposing party to the case to work in illegal activity is an offense that most always ends in lifetime disbarment. Now, at Wikipedia, Fred Bauder, while in the position of a judge, again exercised conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by violating the most fundamental principle for the judicial process applied by all the democratically recognized courts of the U.S., Canada, all member states of the EU and others plus the United Nations International Court of Justice at The Hague. No person at Wikipedia knows better this most sacred universal principle than someone trained in the law.


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • I have notied Fred Bauder here.


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  • Fred Bauder has refused to answer a question at Arbitration Committee Candidate question and answer page. Attempts to have him rectify his misconduct in dealing with others and with the complainant in this matter as seen here, have been ignored and was followed by surreptitious actions in order to skirt the issue.


Statement by Ted Wilkes

Fred Bauder was convicted by the Supreme Court of Colorado of an extremely serious breach of professional conduct and disbarred. Fred Bauder misled Wikipedia as to his status as a lawyer and after being appointed as a founding member of the Arbitration Committee, lied about the circumstances when confronted with the fact of his disbarment. Fred Bauder's integrity issues for which the Supreme Court of Colorado found him guilty, have surfaced in his actions as a member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. The quality of the work in the case I brought before the Committee, and his actions and assertions since, are consistent with the Supreme Court of Colorado grievance committee reasons for his disbarment.

During the hearing on my complaint as to the conduct of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al, here at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources cited by Onefortyone, certain of Fred Bauders actions were improper. Before the Arbitration case was closed, Fred Bauder advised the defendant that: We assume you are a good editor who sometimes goes too far. In addition, pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's ruling, Fred Bauder began acting as an adviser to defendant Onefortyone. Following my notice to Onefortyone that I considered his continued actions were improper and I was preparing a refererral to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for a violation of his probation, Fred Bauder interfered with the process in defense of Onefortyone and used threats and intimidation against myself and another party who also opposed the continued actions and disruptive tactics of Onefortyone.

There is a pattern of misconduct by Fred Bauder at Wikipedia that is consistent with the type of disregard for rules and propriety for which he was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Colorado. While I have not done a detailed search, a cursory review shows that Paul Beardsell complained about such conduct at User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6#Tkorrovi vs Psb777 saying to Mr. Bauder: "Surely you find it strange that an allegation is made and before a response can be tabled you are already saying you agree with the complainant!"


Evidence of misconduct at Wikipedia by Fred Bauder

During the hearing on my complaint as to the conduct of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al, here at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources cited by Onefortyone concerning Wikipedia:Reliable sources usage in articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley, James Dean etc. that were deliberately interlinked by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al, Mr. Bauder inserted the following opinion:

  • Sources are surprisingly good - Fred Bauder 14:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This assertion was careless and without foundation of any kind. It was replied to here

Following the Arbitration Hearings, User:Onefortyone began his established tactic of repeatedly inserting into the articles the same unacceptable information and variants which the Arbitration Committee had ruled against. Despite being reverted by me and other users, Onefortyone and his Anon 80.141 continued his disruptive tactics to which I notified him on 18:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC) here that his actions were improper and I was preparing a refererral to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for a violation of his probation.


Following this....

Statement by Fred Bauder

You are the third person to dig up this dirt. I can understand your feeling that, using it, you can deal a knockout blow. However, from my perspective, as I never engaged in the original behavior I was charged with (the charge being trumped up), and was being asked to pay for transportation and lodging for a witness that testified regarding behavior I never engaged in, I feel innocent and put upon rather then either guilty or contrite.

You don't have your facts right. As the result of a complaint by a client that I had solicited his wife for prostitution a disciplinary charge was made which resulted in public censure and payment of costs. When I did not pay the costs a second disciplinary charge was made which resulted in a 30 day suspension. As I did not apply for lifting of the suspension (and could not until I pay the costs) my take on it is that I remain suspended. I suppose I remain a lawyer with the adjective "suspended", but what happened is that I began selling books and after a while went on social security, meanwhile devoting myself to my hobbies. My thought is that this resulted in a substantial benefit to Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with Wilkes' actions is that this had all been gone over before several months ago. He has some minor complaints, but the essence of the underlying matter is that he did not like the way the arbitration case came out and refused to respect it and keep reverting Onefortyone and insisting he ought to be banned. When he didn't get his way he blew up and started slinging mud. I understand the tactic and am upset about it, but I intend to focus on the real issue. He feels the arbitration case was decided wrong. Since that is the case the remedy is to appeal the case or reopen it. Fred Bauder 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

Tmayes1999

Involved parties

and

Brief summary

User:Tmayes1999 repeatedly places content at A-bomb, despite consensus that it be merged/redirected to nuclear weapon and nuclear weapon design.

Confirmation of awareness of request

Notices were placed on the following pages:

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

Extensive discussion has been held on the following pages. In all cases, the consensus was that any new content in A-bomb should be merged into Nuclear weapon and/or Nuclear weapon design, with A-bomb itself being a redirect to one of these pages.

Additional attempts to explain to Tmayes1999 what the rationale for the merge/redirect was were made on:

Additional correspondence has occurred via email. If users choose to quote it, it can be put in their statements.

Statement by Christopher Thomas

I became aware of A-bomb when it appeared on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Physics as a page needing cleanup. At that point, it had been merged/redirected to nuclear weapon at least twice. After surveying the associated conversation threads on Talk:A-bomb and Talk:Nuclear weapon, I concluded that it did indeed appear to be duplicate material, and reverted to the most recent redirect page. Since then, it has been repeatedly restored by Tmayes1999 and reverted by other users.

Fastfission, DV8 2XL, and others have tried to explain to Tmayes1999 that a duplication of material from Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design really isn't a good idea, that he should expand those two articles if he feels they aren't sufficiently thorough, and have requested that he improve his fact-checking, spelling, and grammar both in A-bomb and in his changes to Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design. I've stayed out of this.

I received Wikipedia-relayed email on 15 Nov. 2005 from Tmayes1999 accusing me of malicious vandalism. I attempted to explain relevant Wikipedia policies regarding duplication of content. While he hasn't called me names since then, comments on User talk:Tmayes1999 indicate that other users have been called similar things by him. --Christopher Thomas 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point of clarification: I've started an RFC, as suggested by Theresa Knott, but I have strong doubts that it will accomplish much. It may give formal approval to getting an admin to lock A-bomb in redirect form, but Tmayes1999 has already spent much effort attempting to modify [[[Nuclear weapon design]] in ways that other editors have not considered appropriate, indicating that his disputed editing activities are not limited to the A-bomb article. The reason that I went straight to RFArb is that I do not think that Tmayes1999 will accept instructions to change his ways unless they have the ArbCom's backing. Several editors, including myself, have repeatedly tried to point him at the relevant policies and explain matters already (per talk page cites above). This does not appear to have had any substantial impact. --Christopher Thomas 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional diff showing Tmayes1999's resistance to Wikipedia process, and disrespect for other Wikipedia users: [145]
Choice quotes include:
What have here is some immature megalomanic , no good kids with an unreasonable and rationaly absurd, attitude trying to inflate their ego by abusing me,and doing me wrong (...)
What you did was stupid, rationaly absurd, abusive arbritary, and wrong. You merely showed that you are immature , megalomaniac (...)

Statement by Tmayes1999

(Please limit your statement to 500 words) The other partys in this dispute have been wrongly deleting and redirecting an article, I wrote in wickipedia called A-Bomb. I want this article restored as a stand alone article in wickipedia. I seek to enforce my right to have my own A-bomb article , which is separate from the nuclear weapons article, and the nuclear weapon design articles in wickipedia.

That is all I want. That it is alll I seek here. I want the other parties to this dispute to leave my A-bomb article in wickipedia alone. The other partys in this dispute have no right to insist that their nuclear weapons articles be the only wickipedia articles about nuclear weapons. They have no right to act like malicous vandals by deleting, and redirecting my A-bomb article. If I were to delete and redirect their nuclear weapons article,again , and again in order to insist that my A-bomb article be the only one in wickepedia , and their articles be deleted, and redirected in favor of my A-bomb article : I would be doing them a wrong. I demand that the wrong doing of the other partys in this dispute against me me ,and against my A-bomb article be ended. Tmayes1999

Statement by Fastfission

The user has a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, both socially and technically (so far, this is the best example of both issues). I began with the assumption that with a patient explanation and polite assistance the user would eventually come around and be able to channel his obvious enthusiasm into producing good content. However this does not seem to have been the case, and the user has not provided any indications of change in a positive direction or willingness to address the criticisms by others.

I second the factual account given by User:Christopher Thomas above. Though I'll admit it is a bit condescending to say, I feel a bit sorry for the editor in question because they are clearly in some way very confused, and they clearly have enthusiasm about the topic but are unable at this point to express it in a productive manner, for reasons unknown to me.

Statement by DV8 2XL

In Talk:Nuclear weapon User:Bluemoose asked why A-bomb had a separate article, this is when I first became involved with this issue. I stated there that as A-bomb was poorly written, full of factual errors and redundant that it should be but up for AfD and that it was my intention to do so if there was some support from other editors. The conclusion, after several exchanges, and an attempt to clean it up, was that the article should be redirected, and so it was. Detailed reasons were given to User:Tmayes1999 who failed to responded with rational counterarguments but instead only kept asserting that he wanted the A-bomb article restored. His final communication to us was as follows:

I want my A-bomb article restored and left alone by the people who have been trying to delete it or redirect it. THAT IS ALL THAT ASK FOR . THESE PEOPLE WERE IN THE WRONG TO TAMPER WITH MY A-BOMB ARTICLE. i AM VERY ANGRY ABOUT THIS MATTER. FROM ARBRITATION : i WANT JUSTICE. I WANT THIS GREAT WRONG CORRECTED. TMAYES1999 (sic)

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

  • Reject for now. Start a rfc on this. if the community agrees it's better to have A bomb as a redirect to nuclear weapon then do it and get an admin to protect the page. You don't need us to sort this one out. Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 07:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Theresa. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 18:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, far too early, as with Theresa. James F. (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01 and others acting in concert

Involved parties

Nobs01 Rangerdude Cognition Herschelkrustofsky Sam_Spade

These editors, in various combinations and in various ways, have recently particpated in an editing war involving Wikipedia entries under my real name Chip Berlet, and the name of my employer Political Research Associates, both on the text pages and the discussion pages. I have been involved in editing disputes with all of these editors. The current editing war at Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates gives the appearance of using text entries in Wikipedia and discussion pages to bully another editor (me - Cberlet) in retaliation for editing disputes. A policy regarding such situations needs to be articulated, and if appropriate, the participants named above held accountable.--Cberlet 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

At various times I have been in mediation or participated in requests for comments with most of these editors. I am currently in a stalled mediation with Nobs01 and a dormant mediation with Sam_Spade. Herschelkrustofsky is the subject of an arbitration sanction that involved LaRouche entires in which I participated. --Cberlet 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Also sought mediation with Rangerdude and Nobs01[146] --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cberlet

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Wikipedia when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity. The editors named in this arbitration vary greatly in terms of their behavior, with Nobs01 having the most problematic edit history. Some other editors named have simply participated on the discussion page. All have been involved in editing conflicts with me as a Wiki editor, and then been involved in editing or discussing the entries on me and my employer.

At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?

Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?--Cberlet 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche [147] []and Chip Berlet [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]-follow links after "user in question" who is Cberlet.

Nobs01 proclaims that after his superior edits I "crapped my pants" [153].

Cognition uploads distorted image to entry on Chip Berlet [154] after inserting POV into Chip Berlet [155]

After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [156] [157].--Cberlet 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herschelkrustofsky, also suggests I am a government agent: "One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Wikipedia as an attempt to relive his glory days." [158].

After editorial content disputes with Sam_Spade [159] and Sam_Spade telling me "I suggest you chill the fuck out" I seek mediation [160] Sam_Spade visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [161] --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After editorial content disputes with me, Rangerdude visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [162]--Cberlet 14:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rangerdude

Insofar as it involves me, this request for arbitration is completely frivolous. This is a case of an editor, User:Cberlet, who believes he personally owns and/or controls the content of Chip Berlet, an article about himself in real life. In doing so he commits a violation of WP:OWN. Berlet also frequently self-cites his own material, such as in this edit to the Ludwig von Mises Institute where he adds a link to a highly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center opinion piece he authored as if it were a factual source.

As this case relates to the other editors he named, most if not all appear to have drawn Mr. Berlet's wrath by editing either his article in a way that is critical or differing with his strongly exhibited POV's on other articles. While each of these editor disputes should be analyzed individually, there is certainly no "acting in concert" between any of them and myself against Mr. Berlet. All communications I have made with any of the other editors is public on wikipedia article and user talk pages, and in the few instances I have done so with these editors, the topic was something other than Mr. Berlet. Thus, as far as I can tell, Mr. Berlet's real grievance with me is entirely drawn from the fact that he doesn't like the content I added to an article he claims as "his" own, no matter how sourced and valid that content may be.

I have participated in edits on the Chip Berlet article in the past where I made counterbalancing NPOV additions. At the time I made these additions, the article was generally positive about Mr. Berlet and largely lifted from his own self-bio on his website at Political Research Associates. Mr. Berlet is a vocal political figure who writes with a strong leftist editorial POV. To counterbalance this bias, I added sourced and documented criticism of Berlet by conservative columnist David Horowitz to the article as WP:NPOV dictates. In seeking to comply with NPOV I also added several quotes and links to Berlet's responses to Horowitz so as to ensure his side of their dispute was aired as well. Mr. Berlet immediately reacted in hostility to this addition in a talk page post he titled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (emphasis added), which called for expunging the Horowitz criticism from the text and substituting a link to Horowitz's articles on the bottom of the page.[163] This case is one of many where Mr. Berlet has referred to the Chip Berlet article as "my page" and has tried to control its content, violating WP:OWN

Berlet made similar attempts to exercise ownership over his organization's article, Political Research Associates. In a post that alleged bias against PRA, Berlet stated "We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed"[164]. In my response to this I suggested it was generally inappropriate for PRA to attempt to exercise control over an article about itself and suggested Mr. Berlet should "add to the article—not to subtract from it" if he felt that it was imbalanced against him.[165] Mr. Berlet then responded in a post that contained hostile venom-laced attacks on persons who had criticized him and their supporters:

  • "So far we have had this page taken over by...fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  • "The critics of PRA quoted include...David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right."[166]

This same post by Berlet alsol alleged that Lyndon LaRouche activists had taken over the article, yet when I looked into this allegation I was unable to find any LaRouche edits in the article's history at least since last year if at all.

Back on Chip Berlet a dispute over the size of Horowitz material followed and the page was temporarily protected until a version of the text was agreed upon. This agreement was reached between August 9th and 14th[167] and a neutral admin removed protection.[168]

From that time until the present I have kept the Chip Berlet article on my watchlist. When another content dispute involving other editors emerged earlier this week around November 12th or 13th, I read through the dispute and made a grand total of four talk page contributions. Two of these proposed compromises aimed at resolving the dispute [169] [170] and the other two urged editors whose tempers were flaring up to assume good faith [171] [172]. This arbitration request by Mr. Berlet stems from the November 12th-present dispute and now alleges some sort of vast conspiracy between myself and other editors to subvert articles that he appears to think he owns since they are about him. As can be plainly seen in the edit diffs indicating my involvement in this latest dispute, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the editors who is generally supportive of Mr. Berlet - SlimVirgin - even agreed with one of the suggestions I made as a possible compromise.[173]

In light of the above, I urge the Arbcom to reject and dismiss Cberlet's request, at least as it pertains to me, as frivolous. Should the Arbcom decide to investigate it further, I would urge them to examine the WP:OWN issue as it pertains to Mr. Berlet's behavior on articles pertaining to him in real life. Rangerdude 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal Request

I would also like to request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political material as sources. Jayjg's edits and stated opinions on this subject have exhibited strong support of Mr. Berlet that could potentially compromise the fairness of this case. [174] [175] [176] [177] He should accordingly recuse himself as required by Wikipedia's arbitration policy. Thank you in advance for compliance. Rangerdude 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowspinner

I would hope that the arbcom would take this case, as it touches on a major issue we face on Wikipedia, which is the treatment of expert contributors. Cberlet summarizes the situation accurately - because of his opposition to several groups - most notably our friends in the LaRouche movement - he is a target for harassment and defamation. On the one hand, as we've learned in countless cases (John Byrne, the Bogdanovs), we have to be careful about letting editors dictate the content of articles about themselves. On the other, it would be a far graver mistake to allow expert contributors to be driven off through campaigns of harassment by their political enemies. Phil Sandifer

One issue that I think this case makes clear is that editing to bolster the representation of one POV is not itself a violation of NPOV - yes, Cberlet's edits unquestionably reflect his POV. But even in the example of the edits Sam cites to Political Research Associates, the edits seem to me to be good NPOV edits. In one case, after wholly rewriting the article, CBerlet also adds an NPOV tag to it, showing, to my mind, extraordinary concern for the policy. But the edits cited - removing inaccuracies, trimming quotes that just slander, but don't support any of the claims made in the article - these are good things to do. They do not magically become bad things based on the editor who does them. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

While it's important to resist the wishes of public and semi-public figures who wish to eliminate criticism of themselves, this goes beyond that and into the realm of grudges and personal attacks. Insertions of tangental and irrelevant references to Berlet in a number of articles and screens of references to "body counts" add up to a POV pusher with a grudge against this user. Gamaliel 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Spade

Here is a brief summary of Cberlet's history of aggression towards myself.

The charges Cberlet brings are of course absurd, and in my regards likely consist of nothing more than a recent thank you note from nobs on my talk page, and questions I asked here. I have no idea who User:Cognition is, for example, and have had only fleeting contact w the other named parties. It would be interesting if Cberlet or my other accusers provided evidence for their claims.

I had, however, been considering bringing a case against Cberlet for his neverending POV pushing (have a glance at his contributions sometime), but I am uncertain he is so bad as to require banning.

I will examine my evidence, and his recent contributions, with what little time I have to spare during midterms, and will comment regarding a counter-suit at another juncture.

Sam Spade 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Case against Cberlet

Cberlet is the clearest example of POV pushing I know of on the wikipedia. I intend to make this as clear as possible.

Premises:

  • User:Cberlet is Chip Berlet
  • Chip Berlet is notable enough for a wikipedia article
    • Chip Berlet is an a opinionated journalist
    • We know what Chip Berlet's POV is (roughly)
  • Cberlet makes edits of the same POV as he expresses in his profession, sometimes even citing his POV.
  • Cberlet's POV is not often notable

Examples:

  • Cberlet cites himself
  • Cberlet expresses his POV on his articles talk page

While the wikipedia has many professors (or other sorts of experts on various matters) who are also editors, they are not allowed to cite themselves, by name, in the article namespace; nor express their POV therein. If someone else cites them due to their notability, that is of course allowed. They should not however become interfered in such matters.

Sam Spade 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I hope the committee will accept Cberlet's case. Chip Berlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in May 2004 [183] by an IP address within a range known to have been used by the LaRouche accounts (Herschelkrustofsky et al), who used the page as a platform for LaRouche criticism of Chip until the second LaRouche arbcom case in January 2005. In July, Rangerdude fell out with Cberlet on other pages, opened an RfC against him on July 25, and then started editing Chip Berlet on July 28 [184] (the first time he'd edited it), inserting criticism, which raised a potential legal problem of negative material being inserted with malice. (I'm currently having to defend myself, in the arbcom case against Rangerdude, against charges that I violated NPOV and AGF when I tried to stop him. [185]) Now Nobs01, who often edits with Rangerdude, is inserting that Chip was closely associated with "defender[s] of terrorism," and has made comments that look like threats, implying that if we don't retain the material, he'll insert even worse, which again raises the issue of malice. "If you want to spend weeks discussing the Weather Underground, Philip Agee ... fine. In the end, you may wish the namespace only included 'an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism'," [186] "The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary," [187] and "Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented." [188] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Rangerdude, he has made a helpful suggestion for compromise between Nobs01 and the other editors, and hasn't backed Nobs up this time. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herschelkrustofsky

Since February of this year, I have made no edits to Chip Berlet and a grand total of three edits to Talk:Chip Berlet: this one, where I caution other editors about the use of weasel terms; this one, where I answer a question by Willmcw about Berlet's employment at High Times magazine, and this one(with a four word follow-up question to SlimVirgin here,) regarding the use of an advertising-style promotional photo in the article.

And I have added this one today. --HK 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, I have reason to wonder what motivated Cberlet to include me in his request for arbitration. I also find it odd that Cberlet wishes to represent such a heterogenous grouping of editors as "acting in concert." Berlet cites two messages on my talk page from Nobs01, while omitting my response on Nobs' page; to put the matter in context, I have reconstituted the entire exchange here.

As regards his case more generally, I agree with Rangerdude that this falls under WP:OWN. Wikipedia policy protects User:Cberlet from personal attacks, but provides little protection to Chip Berlet, the public figure (an irony to be appreciated by those of us who witnessed Cberlet's repeated biting of newcomer Zirkon in discussions over the article Fair comment.) Chip Berlet is without a doubt a public figure, although if he were as prominent in his field as Snowspinner, SlimVirgin and Willmcw insist, I should think he would have no need to spend hours each day promoting himself via Wikipedia. User:Daniel Brandt, in his own abrasive way, attempted to argue that he should "own" the article Daniel Brandt, and met with little sympathy. Of course, Cberlet should not need to edit the article Chip Berlet, because he has SlimVirgin and Willmcw as proxies to do it for him.

In the second LaRouche arbitration case, a unanimously adopted finding of fact was that "A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia." If this was intended to be a gentle warning to Chip Berlet/Cberlet, it has fallen on deaf ears. In the event that the ArbCom agrees to hear this case, I will pursue a counterclaim against Cberlet for:

  • POV pushing
  • Original research (much of the self-quoting that Cberlet has introduced into Wikipedia has never been published outside of his website)
  • Exploitation of Wikipedia for commercial purposes
  • Incessant violations of Wikiquette, including personal attacks (Sam Spade has already referenced some doozies.)

--HK 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Recusal Request

I would like to second Rangerdude's request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political views as source material. --HK 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by third party Flcelloguy

As mentioned above, a mediation was requested between Cberlet and Nobs01 by Cberlet on September 27 and began shortly thereafter. As a member of the Mediation Committee, I was assigned to the case, which involved several articles relating to the VENONA project. Mediation has been ongoing ever since and was only suspended today by myself because of this Arbitration case. I only bring up the mediation because it is mentioned by the plaintiff above, and also because the mediation involves the plaintiff and one of the defendants (Nobs01). The matters that we discussed at mediation only related to the VENONA project article; thus, the issues are at best tangentially related to the issues brought up in this Arbitration case. However, it is clear that Cberlet and Nobs01 stand on different sides of the river and that both are in dispute with each other more than just at the articles that mediation covered.

The mediation is on Wikipedia and is available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01 and its corresponding subpages. I will be more than happy to detail the mediation more clearly or to clarify any questions that Arbitrators may have regarding this mediation on request.

Thanks very much. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nobs01

I believe there is a long trail of User:Cberlet editing in bad faith and other applicable policy violations. This is primarily a content dispute, which Cberlet has made little or no effort to use proper citations or methods, insisting upon his priveleged POV as an "expert". His opening statements here, "acting in concert", "most problematic, or "as team regarding LaRouche", are provably false, and may be another policy violation of abuse of process. The same is provable regarding his Mediation request. If necessary, the other users named here should be separated from User:Cberlet's conspiracy theory about "digging up dirt".

Let me also add, I have always acted in a manner that separates Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet, acting in the capacity of a fellow Wikipedian, from the Chip Berlet Wiki article.

However this case proceeds, before it concludes, we shall document that Mr. Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, was singled out by an authority widely recognized as the "foremost analyst of left and right wing extremism" in America, as one of four of the most extremist organizations purporting to be a "Watchdog group". This may be helpful to Wikipedia, given the overreliance on Mr. Berlet as an inhouse "expert", which may have created NPOV distortions in several articles. nobs 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand total of 3 edits lifetime were content was added to Chip Berlet, [189] [190][191]; 20 edits total lifetime since 13:23 3 August 2005 as follows: 4 rv; 11 fmt, notes, cites, or further reading; 1 wikify; 1 img. Given the above claim "Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry... Nobs01 having the most problematic" please mark as Exhibit 1 of abuse of process [192] nobs 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 2 Abuse of process Cberlet's most recent breach of good faith.

  • 9 August
  • nobs posts: "Notice: As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution on other pages, I will be abstaining from further input in this article or other articles directly relating Mr. Chip Berlet (until such a time as suspension of abstention etc.)"[193]
  • note: this was agreed to earlier as part of Mediation as well.
  • 7 November
    • Cberlet solicits assistance at WikiIN-1 to list Category:Soviet spies at CfD since "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter" [195]. nobs 02:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 3 Abuse of process (Abuse of process = false statements) Cberlet lists 2 diffs above to support claim of "work as team regarding LaRouche", and "acting in concert"; this is the only contact with this User I've ever had in Wikipedia, and he didn't even vote at the CfD [196]. My second posting to him was a response to his objection on my Talk page [197].

Please see, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties", pgs. 114-131 for analysis of the "pathology" of using "links and ties". nobs 04:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 4 Abuse of process Allegations have been made here and elesewhere user:nobs was "digging up dirt" to "denigrate" User:Cberlet; when the time comes, nobs will be able to document, through Wikipedia diffs the material came into nobs hands quite accidentally (with the help of User:Ruy Lopez, no less) on a completely different subject unrelated to the Chip Berlet article. When the material did come into nobs hands, nobs request Cberlet in September to respond to it, twice. Acting in good faith, nobs spent the time to fully qualify the source of the information, and the nature of the issues raised. Nobs01 never set about with the intent to "dig up dirt". nobs 04:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How User:Ruy Lopez found Laird Wilcox Report.[198]
    • "Google shows the words "magdoff", "kant" and "venona" appear on exactly four web pages ("hiss", "ales" and "venona" appear on over 700). One of these pages is Nobs01's Wikipedia entry, so it's really three entries. One is from a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source. One is from some far-right red-under-every-bed author, who basically accuses pretty much every known figure on the left, whether communist or not, of being a Soviet spy - Alger Hiss, Harry Magdoff, Harry Dexter White, even IF Stone for God's sake. The other is a memo referring to the original Venona message"
      • "far-right red-under-every-bed author", i.e. John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division [199]
      • "memo referring to the original Venona message" cryptome
      • "a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source", i.e. Volksfront publishing Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999. nobs 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 5 Abuse of process Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Dispute resolution states,

users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages
  • 31 July
    • 20:43
      • nobs posts on Cberlet's talk page "Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page"[200]; Cberlet continues blistering personal attacks elsewhere.
    • 20:45
      • "I have no interest in a side conversation."[201]
  • 3 August
  • "Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to." [202]

Hence, it was at User:Cberlet's insistance the material at Talk:Chip Berlet be dealt with publicly. nobs 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

HeadleyDown, JPLogan, others

Case by FT2

Article
Neuro-linguistic programming (Talk)

Involved parties

Users concerned (Note: new suspected sock-puppets get added regularly)

The five main users discussed in this RFArb:

Additional suspected accounts, sock-puppets or cronies (primarily NLP talk page):

Not all of these accounts are causing problems to an equal degree as others. Roughly the above list is in order from most actual damage to date, to least. The first 5 at least have each been persistently disruptive through to vandalistic since first visiting.

Brief summary of case

The neuro-linguistic programming ("NLP") article has been damaged by aggressive POV warrioring. The named accounts (including sockpuppets, meatpuppets and cronies) are all one-use accounts, created within the same short time period. Their appearance here is connected to vandalism, disruption and POV warfare by User:HeadleyDown, in combination with a message posted on the Yahoo skeptics-forum in September encouraging forum users to visit the Wikipedia NLP article. The users, acting in broad concert [evidenced], have been engaging in a common behavior of extreme POV warfare, vandalism, sock-puppeteering, and ongoing breach of policy on that article ever since. Despite RfC and mediation, a large number of explanations by various users of WP:NPOV and other policies, and a second attempt at mediation [203] purely focussing upon NPOV aspects of the matter, the behavior remains constant. Several explicit warnings were given of referral to Arbcom (example), combined with courteous requests to comply with key WP policies despite personal attacks and lack of civility to other editors. These measures failing and the problems continuing unabated, bona fide wikipedians working on this article voted 7-0 that mediation is fruitless, and to approach ArbCom for a ban on editing on the subject of NLP and its associated articles by the above and by their associated cronies.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified, both by general notice on the article's talk page DIFF and individually: HeadleyDown, JPLogan, DaveRight, D.Right, Bookmain, AliceDeGrey, AMaulden, JaseC, HansAntel

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The article and its editors have run the gamut of reasonable discussion.

The Neuro-linguistic programming article has been through discussion, dispute, RfC (linguistics) Sept 14, and 5 weeks of mediation. I asked for mediation a second time specifically with HedleyDown (Oct 30). A formal talk page vote was finally held (Nov. 3) and editors agreed 7-0 [other than editors being discussed] that mediation should be deemed unlikely to be fruitful and the matter passed to ArbCom for a ruling.

Statement by FT2

The Neuro-linguistic programming article, which has for the most part been well run in a civil manner in the past, has been disrupted principally by users HeadleyDown, JPLogan, but also with POV degradation, personal attacks and/or remarks by others such as User:DaveRight, Bookmain and AliceDeGrey. There is now strong suspicion that most if not all of the named users may be sock puppets, due to similarities in their editing and histories. Having run the gamut of reasonable discussion, other contributors to the page in question voted to request arbitration.

None of the users named have made any any significant contribution to any topic other than this one topic and other NLP-related articles (with the exception of DaveRight on Neurofeedback and Speed reading). In some instances they have continued their POV approach on NLP to the detriment of other pages too. In essense, they have acted as POV warriors with a single viewpoint who have proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and have little interest in anything beyond their own view. (eg, see: Psychopablum created by JPLogan). Fundamentally they do not seem to show the slightest ability or care for collaborating in a wiki manner. Indeed their idea of collaboration is insults and ignoring or dismissal of issues, often with personal attacks and remarks. Since apparently joining Wikipedia at similar times (HeadleyDown Aug 2005, JPLogan and AliceDeGrey Sept 2005, DaveRight Oct 2005, etc), all have done virtually no other editing except POV degradation on the NLP article and/or negative talk page comments to its existing editors.

Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that an appropriate ban from Wikipedia NLP editing is appropriate, and this is what is requested.

Examples of POV warring (DIFF examples of each given in the ArbCom vote on the article talk page)
  • POV suppression
  • 3RR breach reported Oct 26
  • Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, often followed by addition of more POV material.
  • Personal attacks (including assumption of bad faith).
  • Ignoring of requests to discuss edits
  • Citation of fraudulent credentials of renown ascribed to an author to back up a slanted source (a web opinion presented as scientific "research")
  • Falsely representing the opinion of professional bodies or ignoring their actual opinions as stated on their own website (which had been pointed out multiple times).
  • Defamatory personal attacks, eg JPLogan's NLP talk page comment "I'm sure someone will find a citation for it... Wanna make some money out of NLP?" in response to removal of a highly critical and unsourced personally written opinion.

These and other examples can be found as DIFFs in the Arbitration vote.

Arbitration vote and DIFF citations at
Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Arbitration.
Other action before Arbitration vote
  • Prior to the vote, a formal request was posted to the mediator's talk page for an opinion whether he felt the mediation process was able to resolve the issue. [204]
  • I and others also warned HeadleyDown and others on multiple occasions that co-editors' patience was running out, and that he needed to respect NPOV policy, as numerous other editors had also stated. I told him explicitly on three occasions that his present type of conduct would be unacceptable on Wikipedia, and would ultimately lead to an Arbitration Committee referral to prevent him editing the article. His reply was initially to agree to renewed mediation, but almost immediately to revert to personal remarks and increased POV attack.
Article vote on ArbCom referral (Nov 3)

Users voting for ArbCom referral (with support for statement that mediation is unlikely to be fruitful):

  1. FT2
  2. Comaze
  3. Lee1
  4. FuelWagon
  5. GregA (originally posted as User:203.217.56.137)
  6. User:PatrickMerlevede
  7. User:Justin Anderson (also posting as 211.27.105.9)

User indicating strong support but not voting due to short time of editing:

  1. Faxx: "If the history of this discussion has demonstrated anything, it's the pointlessness of trying to engage Headleydown and his ridiculous sock-puppets in a constructive dialogue. lets just get to arbitration a.s.a.p .... FT2 has already moved for arbitration not long ago. There were votes although I did not participate due to not really participating in the editing. I've just been reading the endlesly recycling discussion. Nothing will get done this way. HeadleyDown obviously has nothing better to do with his time than pursue his crusade." [205] and [206]

Users voting against arbitration:

  1. None, other than comments by the users concerned.

Mediator's comments:

  1. Following the Arbcom vote, the mediator commented that he felt it was neither efficient nor necessary. [207]
  2. Two days later the mediator added: "Note: to Headley et al, just because I am mediating here does not mean that I have the final say...." [208]
Example events since arbitration vote

Despite the semblence of continuing mediation,

  • HeadleyDown deleted the Arbcom vote post, in "revenge" for his reply being moved (unchanged) to the marked comments section below. [209]
  • HeadleyDown deleted two of Justin Anderson's comments from the Talk page. [210]
  • 3RR broken on at least two further separate occasions preventing balancing material being added, or slanted writing being corrected. (example: 15:02 Nov 7 16:38 Nov 7 17:51 Nov 7 01:10 Nov 8)
  • Multiple personal remarks and attacks
  • The article has had further core factual material removed
  • Related articles to NLP have also begun being degraded; when it was noted that some specialised material was being moved to side-articles, HeadleyDown's response was: "Hi FT2. Presently the NLP modelling page is full of hype and exagerated claims. I wonder why you didn't notice:) That will change soon enough. Regards HeadleyDown" [211]
  • Talk page posts explaining and discussing edits, with the intent of promoting mutual collaboration, continue to be bluntly ignored. (eg: [212])
  • The definitions of the subject, cited from its founders' websites and standard texts, was deleted complete with citations, by JPLogan. [213]
  • An attempt to balance an apparent misrepresentation of an author was followed by ignoring the request to discuss on talk page, and deletion of the balancing quote and addition of more POV citations. This left the introduction with 3 selectively represented views showing a view that NLP was pseudoscience and a cult, and not one of the many research and other citations showing that the opposite view is strongly supported.
  • POV warfare edits continue to the present time (eg in this edit series dated Nov 15 (12 days after the article vote and 2 days after the formal RFArb posting), DaveRight adds the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" 3 times in different places and removes the {{dubious}} tag from a fourth. Following this edit, the article contains 25 mentions of the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" alone, excuding section titles.
Other information
  • One editor, User:TBP, was explicitly self-identified as a sock puppet on his talk page before becoming involved in this article Oct 17 DIFF. He played no part in the vote or its discussion, and only a minor role in the talk page debate, mostly between Oct 27-29.
  • I have responded (#FT2_responses_to_user_statements) to the statements of the named users below, with citations. In summary, the counter-allegations (like most of the allegations in the article) are spurious and unhampered by inconvenient notions like article history or DIFFs. Examples include user:HeadleyDown calling reversion of his highly slanted post back to the mediated version, "Lots of anti NPOV activity" and "Removal of a cited fact", and allegations of "crimes". As user:FuelWagon observes, much of the editing is attempts to hold back the flood of POV warfare, which is then named "promotion" and used to justify personal attacks and remarks.

We have acted with appropriate patience and reserve, but despite much patience, many flames, and much time, there is just no sign whatsoever of any intent to change, nor any significant indication they want to change enough to participate appropriately in Wikipedia NLP for the foreseeable future. We therefore ask that ArbCom accept this matter for Arbitration.

FT2 10:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by HeadleyDown

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Hello mediators/arbitrators. This is interesting. I simply want to say that arbitration is an extremely long way off, and our helpful mediator VoiceOfAll seems to concur with that. Mediation seems to be working well. Each time the NLP promoters (I call them that because a lot of them have a vested interest) remove lots of cited fact, the mediator steps in and they calm down. When the more neutral (sorry, less proNLPers) compromise (usually a lot in favour of NLP) the proNLPers calm down some more. I have to admit it does get very tedious to have to restore censored facts all the time, and have to keep answering the same questions all the time (badgering), so things do get a little heated at times. It doesn't help that nearly all non-proNLPers have been labeled sockpuppets at some time. But things are moving forward now the mediator has helped out. Actually there are often major moves in the direction away from arbitration. I personally am fairly ok with the idea of arbitration, but it seems a bit silly to do so when mediation is starting to work so well with a level head and an good and increasing understanding of the subject. Anyway, its all up to you. Regards HeadleyDown 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(the following diffs were inserted by HeadleyDown into FT2's statement area. Moved by FuelWagon into HeadleyDown's own area. FuelWagon 22:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Arbitrators. For the sake of helping with examining behaviour, here is some evidence of one so-called unbiased editor from the FT2 camp. Actually he is one of the milder examples compared to others such as FT2 or Comaze:

[214] FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledgeHeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[215] Showing both a complete lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to research, and a desire to delete facts that are even presented within NLP books. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[216] Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[217] Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[218] FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[219] removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[220] The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[221] This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

[222] Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[223] It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[224] Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[225] the same research-shy ignorance. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[226] FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings). HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[227] Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is me being mild. There are far worse cases to come. RegardsHeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of FT2’s crimes:

[228] FT2 Removing a cited fact that was a view of psychotherapists. Removing a concluding statement from the paragraph in favour of a small section of an argument in the middle of the paragraph of an academic paper. Again, selective editing without adding the conclusion of the paragraph, and removing more cited fact. Lots of anti NPOV activity. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[229] FT2 adding as much hype in one go as possible. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[230] again FT2 removing properly cited facts. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[231] FT2’s masterpiece of selective editing. The end of the paragraph actually states – But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated. This is FT2’s biggest trick. He likes to take the middle parts of arguments(the positive bits) and cut off the negative conclusion. No other researcher has ever quoted FT2’s section. All other people who quote Sharpley do so using -NLP failed, or is unsupported etc. From a research perspective it is intellectually fraudulent, clear selective editing, biased in the extreme, and grossly misleading. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[232] Here FT2 writes: “It is worth noting that NLP has been criticised for being both ineffective, and for being too effective (ie used for mind control and manipulation). This contradiction has not yet been resolved.” This is FT2’s view. It is also the view of some vandals who claimed the same thing prior to FT2’s appearance. I am willing to overlook that, but the fact is; FT2 is willing to write his own opinion on the article even though he claims to have had lots of experience on Wikipedia. The view is not the view of any other author. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more similar breaches of cooperation, good research and policy that FT2 continues to commit and of course you can judge them as you wish. Regards HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(The following text was added, again to FT2's statement area, after FT2's response/rebuttal of the above)

OK Arbitrators, I wrote the above but I regret it. It is all too shrill. Forget that I said the above. The whole arbitration episode is quite ridiculous. Arbitrators should not have to look around all the content stuff. The fact is, to my knowledge, nobody has done any recent sockpuppetry, there have been no particular offenses (including people calling me a stupid wanker) and the mediator is doing fine (a lot better than I expected). The situation is thus: NLP breeds a lot of followers, and they don't like the fact that science says NLP does not work. It makes them feel really down. They try to remove the fact using every NLP method they can. Wikipedia is a lot more reasonable than that. Facts get removed, and the fact-minded place them back in the article. Devotees keep removing them or demanding more facts and so more facts get placed on the article. They continue to remove the facts as they look more and more depressing to devotees, and they call the mediators, or the arbitrators. They hope that by some miracle they can remove the facts by removing the scientists. Do what you will and try to make the devotees a little less censorious. Otherwise, I am fairly content to restore scientific facts as they are presented by scientists. Best regards HeadleyDown 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPLogan JPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to check my behaviour. You will find that I am no sockpuppet, although accusations abound. I really feel that the proNLP editors have just shot themselves in the foot again. Certainly I have held back on posting the more damning evidence against NLP, and I have posted plenty of remarks and solutions to solve problems. I suggest that arbitrators keep a due sense of humour. Certainly I find the whole thing ridiculous. The NLP promoters have gone against NPOV so many times. Anyway, do your best with all the checking. CheersJPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party user:FuelWagon re: NLP

I became involved in the NLP article in October. I hadn't heard of "Neuro Linguistic Programming" until I found the article, and I have no personal bias for or against the topic. But it is clear to me that the article is in clear violation of NPOV. There appear to be a number of editors with proclaimed biases against NLP who are editing the article in violation of NPOV. Someone with a longer history of the article can present more evidence, but here are a few diffs that show some blatant biases that directly affect the article.

06:58, 23 September 2005 HeadleyDown modifies the first sentence of the introduction to say "(NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification technique", where the term "quasi-spiritual" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

02:52, 25 October 2005 JPLogan modifies the first sentence of the entire NLP article to say "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development", where the term "pseudoscientific" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

03:24, 1 November 2005 DaveRight reverts with the edit summary "I think that deserves some punishment." (violation of WP:Point)

03:39, 3 November 2005 DaveRight does a blanket revert of a number of edits, reinserting a bunch of text including "Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience." as well as "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST" Both sentences present as fact what is actualy disputed opinions of NLP, namely calling NLP "wish fullfillment", "pseudoscience", "amoral", and "psychocult" (Violation of WP:NPOV)

17:13, 12 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes a critic of NLP's opinion from the criticism section ("Jan Damen describes NLP as occult"), rewords it to passive tense so the source (Jan Damen) is not mentioned and the opinion is presented more as fact, and then reinserts it into the pro-NLP section, making it look as if a pro-NLP source describes NLP as "occult". (Violation of WP:NPOV)

01:23, 16 November 2005 HeadleyDown again reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is used for "occult" purposes, where "occult" is POV, biased, and disputed.

03:35, 16 November 2005 DaveRight reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is "fringe", where the term "fringe" is POV, biased, and disputed.

01:55, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is used for "fringe therapy", "psychic activities", "covert seduction", and the "occult".

02:33, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST"

(update) Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it?" Here are some diffs that I've dug up showing about a dozen attempts by me to correct NPOV violations committed by another editor by rewriting them to follow policy. I believe most of these attempts by me were reverted by other editors on the page.

[233] [234] edit summary: "Jan Damen describes NLP as occult" [235] [236] edit summary "Reporting the various points of view as being stated by their sources, rather than stateing them as fact." [237] Edit summary: "I'm rewriting the intro so that all POV statements are reported as someone's point of view, rather than reported as a "fact" followed by (name).)" [238] edit summary: "Attribute pro-NLP information to advocates and supporters." [239] edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.)" [240] edit summary "report the NLP point of view in NLP words," [241] edit summary "intro describes the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. URL's to verify." [242] edit summary "attributing to Dilts" [243] edit summary "another source" [244] edit summary "source" [245] edit summary "introduce NLP using the words of NLP supporters. provide URL's so other's can verify accuracy."

(update) HeadleyDown provided a number of diffs that he claims are POV violatios on my part. I've included them below with my own interpretation on what each diff shows.

These diffs were posted by HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) the format of each diff is

[diff] explanation by HeadleyDown.

my explanation in indented format

[246] FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledge

"quick fix or lay therapy, NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices." completely unsourced, unverifiable.

[247] Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s.

The disputed content is "The foundation for Bandler and Grinder's NLP is based in" followed by "spirituality" or "New Age". The block quote provided in the article immediately below this assertion never uses the phrase "New Age", but mentions that NLP is based on spirituality. I change the content to match what the sourced quote supports.

[248] Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc.

I've provided a dozen diffs that show a dozen attempts by me to rephrase POV statements into NPOV statements. They have all been reverted. This diff shows a POV statement that I deleted. I am not required to "re-phrase" every NPOV violation made by HeadleyDown et al. I've tried and they revert it. Deleting a POV statement is not violation of policy. And a dozen attempts by me to "re-phrase" their pov statements should be sufficient to show good-faith efforts by me to try and work with these editors.

[249] FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno.

"pseudoscience" is POV, and in this diff, the word is unsourced, reported as fact, violating NPOV.

[250] removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience.

The content says NLP has also been identified by the [[British Psychological Society]] as quintessential [[charlatan]]ry (Parker 1999). {{dubious}}. It was marked with a "dubious" tag and given how inflamatory a statement it is, I deleted it saying that it required some means to verify it. My edit summary ends with "please provide a URL for verification."

[251] The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views.

This is an example of me "re-phrasing" POV statements into NPOV statements. I report the views as being stated by the sources who hold them. HeadleyDown then says that these sources are not the only people who have these views. The only problem is that HeadleyDown never provided any verifiable sources to support his claim, except to say that it is "common knowledge".

[252] This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories.

Edit summary says "This is criticism and belongs in the criticism section of intro, with plenty of sources to support use of such biased words". And HeadleyDown found a website selling witchcraft training tapes that said it used NLP techniques. That is like saying since abortion bomber Eric Rudolph is christian, then the introduction to the Christianity article should say that christianity is promoted by people who bomb abortion clinics. As far as I know, the poeple who developed NLP do not associate themselves or NLP with occult practices.

[253] Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact.

Edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.". I report how the NLP Seminars Group International defines NLP and provide a URL. This is not a violation of policy. HeadleyDown wants to define NLP using the words of critics of NLP only. I inserted other points of view.

[254] It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults.

Edit summary: "Dianetics and Landmark Forum is off topic.". ANd it's impossible to tell if the Council Against Health Fraud mentions Dianetics and Landmark, or if "Loma" mentions them, or if HeadleyDown inserted them on his own. Unsourced and unclear assertion.

[255] Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship.

POV wording "NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult (Smith)" needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult". I've done this a dozen times. it keeps getting reverted, so I deleted this one.

[256] FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings).

Edit summary says it all "report the NLP point of view in NLP words, not simply criticize NLP." HeadleyDown refuses to allow pro-NLP sources to have their point of view reported in the article, and insists on reporting only the views that are critical of NLP.

[257] Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature

HeadleyDown needs to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". I've done it a dozen times and got reverted.

Allow me to chip in DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am not DRight:) I am Dave. OK. No idea who DRight is, but he has a cool name:) OK. For what its worth, you may want to look at the Scientology and Dianetics article page. Similar things seem to have gone on there. NLP is one of those pseudoscience subjects that recruits lots of believers who love to hear about "human potential, metaprograms, the difference that makes the difference, the science and technology of excellence" and so on. In fact, they have had all those things on the article at some point. It is interesting though, how often they advocate and even physically remove cited scientific fact. FT2 for example, keeps wanting to remove fact. He also posts his own opinion within the article even when there is absolutely no author who holds the same opinion. He posts strategically altered paragraphs (with the negative ending removed) in order to promote NLP. The fact is, NLP is a pseudoscience, according to scientists, psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists. In fact it is in the same category as Dianetics and EST and sometimes phrenology. The NLP promotional team are dead set on removing facts as they have physically done for months, and they have even tried to recruit vandals from newsgroups. Things do get a bit lively on the discussion page, though the only direct insults have been to poor old Headley. NLP promoter's call him things such as "dullard" and "wanker". No such activity has been seen from neutral editors towards proNLPers, dispite the ridiculous level of fact deletion. There is a general slur campaign against anyone who does not promote NLP. To my knowledge, no negative comment or insults or vandalism has been conducted from neutral editors to the NLPpromoter's pages. Anyway, go ahead and check my ip and tell the NLPpromoters to stop removing scientific facts. ATB Dave DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party Voice of All

While I don't believe that arbitration is the best option for now, I would say that the placement of ((test3)) and ((test4)) signs, accuations of extreme POV, and use of alternate names is likely occuring on both sides here. An IP check on all of the users would be well appretiated, as duplicates can be banned, leaving only the true users. This will removed inflated edit wars and vote tallies/consensus.

I would note however, that I had already recommended that people edit one section at a time. The blanket reverts were mainly of edits to multiple sections. One the other hand, too much anti-NLP criticism has been going into the article recently, under the idea that it is a fact or he did actually say this; article's can not have every single fact about the topic, they must be streamlined, and some sort of balance between truth and representation of all POVs must be reached.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by party AliceDeGrey

My turn! Well, I wish to respond to FT2's point first. Wikipedia is about cooperation. If you cannot cooperate with factual information then you are going to be disruptive. The proNLPers are disruptive. The more neutral editors here cooperate extremely well, and share information through discussion sections and email. We do not delete scientific facts or advocate for its deletion as is happening on the discussion page now. In response to FuelWagon, all of the points he makes involve cited facts (views turned into facts according to NPOV policy). FuelWagon is still advocating for them to be deleted. I personally have spent time researching in my institution with help from others concerning explaining NLP through science. I see the NLP promoters wishing to delete that hard work. I can only see this demand for arbitration as fanatical desperation. I will continue to cooperate with people willing to reduce confusing hype and clearly present the facts. AliceDeGrey 08:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement: Bookmain 08:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working in quite close co-operation with other editors such as Alice and others. We have access to a lot of good info on this subject and there has already been a lot deleted by the NLPpromoters. There is also a good deal of cooperation from other members, such as Flavius Vanillus, and HansAntel (who actually sent us some good foreign language information also). It is blatantly clear that FT2 and FuelWagon, GregA, Comaze and others, have a very strong agenda to promote NLP. If you spend all the time reading "NLP is the solution to all problems" is does not help. But they seem to be unable to even face the facts that NLP is considered pseudoscince and is completely scientifically unsupported. The pressure directed by them in order to bannish such scientific facts is enormous. Even yesterday, Comaze was doing wholesale deletion of facts from the article, even tho mediation had rested with the facts being present in the body and opening. Just take try to take their fervent censorship with a sense of humour. Its not easy. Bookmain 08:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GregA

Hello. I'm not sure if once the arbitration is "accepted" you need to hear from us? I assume you'll let us know what you need.

There has been much argument on the NLP pages and removal and reversion. The "NLP is pseudoscience" group consistently call themselves neutral and rarely choose to discuss an issue - most questions become personal responses or "you just have to accept the facts", rather than specific responses. [258]. If we repeat the question, the response is threats to "provide more damning evidence" (which I've asked them to give us...as we should have all evidence! They don't follow through). For example, responses to a change include "..will lead to more damning detail being presented in order to show exactly how warped and desperate your biased edits are. People here are actually trying to be kind. I have some extremely crushing reviews..." (line 656 [259]), or "Well I will present his damning words on the article. I think that is what you are asking for." [260] [261].

In fact all 4 diffs above also show a similarity in threat style of those 4 different usernames/possible sock puppets. I believe from the style of responses that there are several puppets, though there could certainly be 2 or 3 users with several more sock puppets, sharing similar negative NLP opinions and styles brought in from the yahoo skeptics newsgroup message 8647 message 8653. I also see that whether they are puppets may not matter - that WP:SOCK says "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.".

Please note that I am the one accused above of trying to "recruit" on a newsgroup. See [262] for details including my response. If I have broken some rule my apologies.

In general I have no problem with what Headley et al says he'll do - they often seem very reasonable. His actions are quite different and he can not be judged on his words, only his follow through (Isometimes think he enjoys saying the right thing while doing something different, it certainly provokes a certain kind of response!). Thanks for taking this on, I really hope we can get to representing NLP fairly, warts and all, as soon as possible. GregA 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HansAntel

Hello, I am not sockpuppeting. I give science evidence and the antimediater group (FT2 and all the people he votes and deletes with) will just argue to delete my facts. Why? Because the facts are not promotion of NLP. They are science facts and views to facts that can be cited. The antimediation group want to write lots of complaint. Ignore it. They write nothing but complaint from start to now - I look at the archived information. Give research and evidence, they will delete or change it in total meaning. Check me out. I am moving around a lot but I use the same workstation most postings. Arbitrators please take antimediators (FT2 group) like unserious pestilence. They irritate but you can brush them off your neck. Sincerely Hans HansAntel 02:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 responses to user statements

  1. Voice of All's statement that an initial IP check on all editors concerned would be helpful - agreed. The principle editors of the article and talk page recently are as follows: the eight editors named, the 7 voters named, Voice of All, Flavius vanillus, 203.100.233.178, 203.186.238.*, 211.30.47-48.*, 80.44.*, 81.151.*. However this does not change my feeling that mediation is likely proven fruitless, because the nature of the problem is not textual compromise within the article, but non-wikipedian users and sock-puppets engaging in vandalism, fraudulent credentials cited to bolster extreme view, fraudulent representation of professional bodies despite multiple correction, deterrance of editors, constant personal attacks, remarks and defamation, heavy duty slanting, and utter lack of civility or respect for editors or information.
     
  2. I do not agree with Voice of All that "[t]he blanket reverts were of edits to multiple sections". For most, this seems irrelevant. Quick examples (a few out of many): [263] HeadleyDown replaces one paragraph in intro that presents 2 sides of a view, with 2 extreme views on same side (interesting observation: HeadleyDown uses nonsense word "psychopablum" but JPLogan creates an article defining that word and referencing NLP); [264] JPLogan deletes the entire section of core definitions within the field by its founders complete with full citations on the mind-boggling basis that they are "uncited" and that citing them is "POV"; [265] HeadleyDown removes a key qualifier regarding the British Psychological Society leaving impression that Parkers view represents them accurately; [266] HeadleyDown rewords an already unbalanced paragraph which had been compromised, with even more generalized wording that removes the "X said Y" qualifier; [267] and again more selective POV insertion by DaveRight; [268] Bookmain removes citation from British Dyslexia Association paragraph which uses NLP, replacing it by a subtlely misrepresented citation from Children In Therapy to state "NLP is quackery" (in fact it is attachment therapy and not NLP which is the target of that page, NLP is a technique claimed by attachment therapy protagonists to support it); [269] Bookmain deletes a paragraph that states NLP rests on an observational rather than theoretical basis; [270] ... which is re-deleted by AliceDeGrey when corrected; [271] Bookmain edits the one paragraph on NLP in policing, 1/ replacing a factual "wide range" with "some", 2/ deletes the FBI's actual comment in support of NLP's efficacy, 3/ deletes a police statement that it is field proven, 4/ adds a spurious "claims to be", and 5/ adds a selective quotation after all this that NLP "has been tested by criminologists and has been found not to work in crime situations". [Voice of All has since modified his wording to include the word "mainly" which still seems debatable]
     
  3. Re JPLogan's assertion that he is not a sock-puppet: This case is about sock-puppets or cronies. WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets refers to this when it discusses the creation of:
    "new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts... may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are... treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community... The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
     
  4. Response to Bookmain: Bookmain says, "It is blatantly clear that FT2 and... others have a very strong agenda to promote NLP... But they seem to be unable to even face the facts that NLP is considered pseudoscience and is completely scientifically unsupported." (Note the straw man).
     
    Untrue and not borne out by facts. For example, when I created the article "Principles of NLP" (proper discussion was too long for the main article), I did this neutrally on the classic Wikipedia basis: description, specific principles, sources, criticisms and rebuttals. It does not advocate a side. It describes and characterizes, and includes both viewpoints fully representing each. Please see that article where I wrote specifically under criticisms:
    • "The subject is open ended, that is, it does not specify how the information it obtains should be used, or what can be done with it. So NLP becomes very prone to quackery, incorporation of pseudoscience, and manipulative uses."
    • And again I wrote: "Stronger criticism is usually levelled at NLP as a whole, for the pseudoscientific hype, exaggerated claims and commercialization often associated with it by its practitioners, and this is discussed under the main NLP article."
    No other editor had worked on it article history and yet the mediator, reviewing it a week after drafting, made only one tiny phraseology improvement to the article upon review, leaving the entirety of the article otherwise unchanged [272].

    As well as straw men, Bookmain has a prior history on the article of inventing other fraudulent "facts" and misrepresentative assertations out of the blue to bolster his argument. Example: he characterizes a minor hypnotist, Dylan Morgan, as "a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist" and of a critical opinion piece by the man as "research" and "the final word": "Dr Morgan's scientific followup and final word assessment is entirely relevant. It is also the view of a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist." Bookmain DIFF (for the basis of my characterization of Morgan as minor, and the representation as fraudulent, see /Research#Morgan)
     
  5. Re AliceDeGrey: Wikipedia is about neutral, rounded and balanced encyclopaedic summaries of subjects. Co-operation is a means, not an end. It ceases to be a means to Wikipedia's goals, when it is used to enforce an unbalanced and slanted view of one approach to a subject. WP:NPOV has been summarized for editors by FuelWagon, and also by myself more than once. If Alice is stating that I habitually delete "scientific fact" (or do so without discussing or indicating that a citation exists if needed) she needs to provide some examples. It's very noticeable that the presented case and rebuttals contain numerous visible citations. By contrast as a double standard, a list of 84 citations with links (/Research#Recognition_by_other_bodies), of NLP used by credible organizations, has been provided, but AliceDeGrey has not yet moved even a finger to discuss or acknowledge it, nor to adjust the article to represent it fairly.
     
    AliceDeGrey is somewhat disingenuous when she states "We do not delete scientific facts or advocate for its deletion" (implicit acknowledgement of a group of editors). See her own edits, [273], [274] removing details of how NLP is used by cults making it seem NLP is a cult, [275] removal of critical 1st half of quote, [276] preface the intro definition with the sentence "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method proposed for programming the mind", [277] adds "and remote ESP influence" to a list of NLP uses, [278] adds "and dubious (Morgan 1993)" knowing that Morgan was an opinion writer yet referencing him as if he were a scientist [279], rvt/reinstates this adding untruthfully that this opinion of Morgan's is "A more recent scientific assessment" [280], then when corrected rvt/reinstates again this time adding a further misleading characterization as a "published follow up scientific assessment (Morgan 1993)" [281], removes a statement by one of America's foremost professors of linguistics that two of NLPs disputed presuppostions are in fact "major findings of cognitive science" [282], removes the observation on the contradictory nature of criticisms leveled at NLP [283], reinstates the "NLP is a method of programming the mind" deleted earlier [284], removes the skeptics dictionary reference deliberately leaving Carroll (2003) looking like a research academic [285], .....
     
  6. Re DaveRight: [reply in progress, tidy up later today] I find it strange there are both a "D.Right" and a "DaveRight". But we'll see what we see. As far as Dave's accusations go, they are inaccurate. He has posted the identical allegation, equally untrue, on the Talk page of the article, and my reply and citations stand good here too: Nov 3/after line 1794.
     
    I also cite other evidence of neutrality including my exclusion of a "support" vote under wikipedia policy same link/line 1725, my talk page posts [286] and [287] the cited section removed as discussed here and (see "response to Bookmain") the neutral inclusion of the various strong criticisms into the initial Principles of NLP article when I wrote it. On numerous occasions I explain edits on the talk page for discussion, and added balancing negative criticisms on NLP on several occasions where they seemed justified. For example here I try to represent both sides and ask others to edit if incorrect, [28 October 2005] I ask Headley to discuss so the edit can be agreed (ignored). On many other occasions [288] and [289] and [290] and [291] and [292] and [293] for examples of article edits that were explained, or citations offered, on the talk page. Edits were explained on the talk page: [294] [295] "Any criticisms please bring here... as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section" [296] and [297] and a request to name "...one non-trivial example of a statement I added, that you feel is not supported factually and inaccurate." [298] and "if you wish to revert please first mention here exactly which statements you feel are inaccurate. Rather than mass-reverting the entire definition. This is in compliance with wiki standards that say a dispute over wording should be hammered out on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverted" [299]
     
    By way of contrast, the tone of DaveRight's contributions is somewhat... unwikipedian: Can anyone think of a good new religious name for NLP? How about The Church of New Rolling Wizdicks?DaveRight 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)" [300]
     
  7. Re HansAntel: I am prepared to believe Hans is not a literal sock puppet, nor is he a disruptive editor as such. Hence why I have listed him separately from the other 5 named users. But that's all. He edits with a common agenda to the other named users, he arrived here roughly with the other named users, he almost certainly found this site in connection with the current POV-warfare style editing on NLP (ie advocacy) rather than from a general wish to neutrally write for an encyclopedia. As an editor, he uses at times perjorative wording assumptions and straw men similarly to the other named users, Hans also makes vague accusations and personal remarks as they do, and falls under WP:SOCK as a "single use account" and likely meatpuppet. WP policy states such users may be considered sockpuppets for this purpose. By way of example, his statement above contains no actual substantive matters, just a set of poorly defined personal remarks, an unsubstantiated and grossly inaccurate statement that I "want to write lots of complaint... nothing but complaint from start to now" and that I delete facts (see previous for rebuttals), and some statements of his personal view. I would tend to agree if he states that he has not vandalized the article in any way, or has a potential to contribute to the article: his non-neutrality, purpose on wikipedia, single use account, and common agenda with a group of aggressive POV warriors, is the concern for me.
     
  8. Re HeadleyDown additions: HeadleyDown later adds a section, most of which concerns other editors. But it references "the FT2 camp" which I object to, and at the end it states, "Here are some of FT2’s crimes", listing 5 diffs. Most of these are misrepresented:
    1. Allegation: There is an "FT2 camp".
      Rebuttal: I was already a previous editor on this subject. Despite this, my contributions show none whatsoever on NLP or its talk page or related articles between 5 Aug (when HeadleyDown arrived) and 27 Oct (when it became obvious there was a sockpuppet or crony issue severely slanting the article), whilst I tried to let existing editors reach agreement. By 27 Oct it had already undergone RfC and RfM, all the other major editors were already engaged, and my focus was to try and clarify the NPOV issues, and rework visibly problematic edits, as someone unaligned. It is false to name me as having a "camp" or similar. I have tried to work with both sides. One of many examples of this
    2. Allegation: Removing cited facts and selective editing. "Lots of anti NPOV activity." DIFF
      Rebuttal: This was in fact a rvt of Headley's edits, back to the mediated version. Headley had edited the mediated version to include multiple additional criticisms (again), adding the words: "significant criticism" (twice), "promotion" (twice), "dubious" (once), "pseduoscientific" (once) on top of many existing references of these words, plus deletion of a research citation stating that research was limited and had probably not yet been undertaken properly. My edit narrative read: "rvt Headley to VoiceOfAll: WP is about a balanced neutral encyclopaedic view - not every "fact" has a place, especially not when it's merely further unbalancing an already unbalanced article".
    3. Allegation: removing properly cited facts. DIFF
      Rebuttal: This is half of a 2-edit diff. The full diff is here. It's the same identical reversion as the above, reverted again because Headley kept trying to push the above noted POV into the article without discussion. It differs slightly since it incorporated reinstatement of mediator edits that HeadleyDown had deleted from the article too. My edit narrative for these two edits read: "[try that again], rvt to 3.09 version, including VoiceofAll's edit on "New Age" "
    4. Allegation: Adding as much hype in one go as possible. DIFF
      Rebuttal: Following the one sided nature of the article, I listed for discussion some 84 citations from credible organisations that state NLP is used or found to be of value to them, at Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Research#Recognition_by_other_bodies. Every last item on that list was sourced, and every last one had a web link provided for verification. All but a handful were current (2004-2005). This was appropriate in view of headley and others' repeated comments that they did not know of any people taking, or using, NLP seriously. Neither Headley nor his colleagues have ever denied this list is accurate. Headley & Co. having failed to represent NLP's usage properly, I added a summary of this material myself, complete with citations for every entry, listing the facts and letting them speak for themselves. I find it hard to see how this characterizes as "hype". My edit narrative read: "Just a few... I think its time some balance was brought to this article, the evidence has been on the other page for some time now as to applications."
    5. Allegation: FT2’s "masterpiece of selective editing... FT2's biggest trick". Alleges that the argument is selectively cited, taking the middle and ignoring the negative conclusion.. States that "The end of the paragraph actually states – But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated". Characterizes the edit as "intellectually fraudulent, clear selective editing, biased in the extreme, and grossly misleading" from a research perspective.DIFF
      Rebuttal: This was part of a HeadleyDown breach of 3RR reversion, and arose after I had reverted it twice already. Edit narratives:
      • 16:06 "Rvt - misrepresentative of research sources, see talk page *again* headley. When I say "if you have an issue discuss 1st", thats because it's WP policy Headley"
      • 17:22 "See talk page, selective citation is not okay see WP:NPOV"
      • 18:04 "Headley..... that's still weasel ("other reasons") and pov suppression. If you don't know the scientific research or usage, then ask on the talk page as suggested, rather than just reverting."
      The edit itself can be seen in the DIFF, and its neutrality judged. Addressing Headley's points:
      • Re the allegation of selectivity, I note that if a researcher states in one and the same paper, that:
        "Research data do not support the rather extreme claims that the proponents of NLP have made"
        and ALSO states:
        "This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness... Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field",
        then I think to choose just the negative one, when one is already selectively inserting only the more negative citations already, is highly inappropriate. So I added the balancing quote in order that the author would not be misrepresented. It is clear that he wrote both sentences, and it is hard to see his very specific wording not being intended as it reads.
      • Regarding the end of the sentence, in fact Headley seems to be deliberately misquoting that paragraph here. It does NOT say "But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated". DaveRight actually posted the end of that sentence on the NLP pages for us, and says that it reads very differently: "But, if it has been tested and fails then it is relegated."
      • Headley represented the BPS (again) as viewing NLP as "Charlatanery". My response to this has been given many times, and actual BPS citations where they support and recommend NLP, or at the least do not treat it at all like "quackery", are cited and linked at /Research#British_Psychological_Society. HeadleyDown has never acknowledged these. Rather than delete a viewpoint, I added a note in parentheses, that this view was no longer supported by the BPS.
      Apparently the standard for citation inclusion varies tremendously depending whether it is a view that represents NLP in the extremely critical light or not. That might be Headley's view. But it is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
    6. Allegation: I stated that NLP is criticised both for being ineffectual and being too effective. "This contradiction has not yet been resolved". HeadleyDown states first that this is a personal view, then that it is a view he has heard from others who he calls "vandals" (but never names), finally stating that it "is not the view of any other author" but mere personal opinion. DIFF
      Rebuttal: Apart from the contradictions in his own words, it is clear that 1/ NLP has been criticized for being ineffective, Headley & Co. have dug up multiple citations to this effect. 2/ NLP has been criticized for being effective in and used as part of mind control and cults etc. Again, both Headley & Co. and I have dug up multiple citations to this effect as well. 3/ These contradict, 4/ The contradiction is noteworthy since it shines a light on NLP and NLP research, and 5/ The contradiction has not yet been resolved. I am unaware of a reason why this would be a remarkable edit or considered unsourced. The edit contains a variety of other edits too. The edit narrative states "Criticism - cleanup - see talk page". The talk page post I wrote explaining this edit is here and worth reading for its neutrality.
    7. Weasel words signoff: "There are many more similar breaches of cooperation, good research and policy that FT2 continues to commit" (ominous words, but none are cited).
    8. HeadleyDown, rebutted, attempts to back-pedal / soft-pedal his accusations and actions, adding that "The whole arbitration episode is quite ridiculous." [301]

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

User:Johnski et al.

Pages: Dominion of Melchizedek, Bokak Atoll, Solkope, etc.

Involved parties

Complainants:

Against:

Brief summary: On going vandalism with pages associated with Dominion of Melchizedek by user Johnski and his sockpuppets. This has been going on for over four months.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Plantiffs: User:Centauri [303], User:Gene Poole [304], User:Jdavidb [305], User:Calton[306], User:shocktm [307], User:El C [308], User:Dejvid[309], User:Samboy [310]

Defendants:User:Johnski [311], User:KAJ [312], User:SamuelSpade [313] (Note: This user has been blocked as a sock puppet), User:Wiki-Facts [314], User:Rriter [315].

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:

On November 3rd, I requested this case be mediated and posted in on the appropriate page. The request for mediation was declined by User:Sam Korn and he stated that he didn’t feel mediation was likely to be useful.

I was disappointed and asked Sam Korn what other method he thought would be useful. He stated RFC would be a better option. The problem with this is however, is we have tried to RFC this article in the past. Also, because one user is responsible for reverting the articles in question multiple times with multiple user names, the process would only be manipulated and abused by this person by voting as many times as he saw fit to.

Statement by User:Davidpdx (on behalf of all complainants)

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the article Dominion of Melchizedek, 60+ times in the last two months. Johnski has been reverting these pages without consensus for over four months.

Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Wikipedia general editing principles.

He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical state and David Even Pedley.

When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alleges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.

Johnski does not follow the rules of Wikipedia and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Wikipedia, and should be curtailed.

The specific allegations being made are as follows:

Allegation #1: Adding statements that are POV without providing proof in terms of his claims and deleting claims he disagrees with and making dishonest statements. In terms of area (size of the country), Johnski makes the assertion that DOM claims the entire earth, while not providing evidence of this claim. [316] When he edits the page, he is careful to remove any criticisms of DOM and/or change statements to minimize frauds that have been committed by the people involved. [317]

Allegation #2: Reverting Dominion of Melchizedek, Bokak Atoll and other articles without consensus. [318]

Allegation #3: Inability to show good faith and follow the rules of Wikipedia. Posts information on talk page, then proceeds to revert the page and leaves the following message, “refer to talk page and before reverting see if you can't find something you can keep in your next revision.” [319] Johnski has made many statements about Wikipedia rules which are false and misleading. He also has made assertions that seven to ten people support his version of the article. [320]

Allegation #4: Misquoting sources to push POV edits. [321] Misquoting Washington Post Article, Johnski claimed it said “dubious” when the article claimed DOM was in fact a “ruse.” [322] Misquoting the United States U.S. Comptroller of the Currency claiming that because a document refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" and make it appear that the US is giving defacto recongniztion, when that is clearly not the case.

Allegation #5: Harassment-Mainly creating an article on Wikipedia called Wikilante to criticize those he disagrees with. The article itself was tagged Speedy Deletion, then recreated and deleted and protected so that he could not recreate it. [323] User:Sjakkalle in the edit summary that the page was stated, “Recreated after speedy deletion, created by a disgruntled user.” Davidpdx 22:49, November 13, 2005

I would like to restate again, my allegation in terms of sockpuppets being used. So far, one user name has been blocked. I am working to try to find out any details why, but I would appreciate it if the arbitration committee would look into this, instead of mearly discarding the possiblity of this being true.
For the record, I am not the "ringleader" of this group, which implies I'm putting pressure on other people to come forward. There are many other people that have a problem with the editing done by Johnski other then myself. Johnski would like you to believe that it is purely a matter between him and I, but this isn't true. Davidpdx 04:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Samboy

The issues I see here is that

  • A single editor is trying to impose his changes on articles against the wishes against multiple other editors.
  • This editor is using sockpuppets as part of his effort to make these changes

As per point one, he keeps trying to add Dominion of Melchizedek content to a number of articles about geographic locations whose only relation to DOM is the fact that DOM has claimed that they own the land in question. Here are some recent edits in just one article: [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331].

The user is also being dishonest; he is using multiple accounts. You can see above the three different accounts making the exact same DOM- related changes: User:Johnski, User:KAJ, and User:SamuelSpade. You can see that these accounts have, by and large, have only made a relatively small number of edits, almost all DOM related: Jonski contributions KAJ contributions SamuelSpade contributions. In particular, in all cases, the first edit for these accounts was DOM-related. This is a clear case of using sockpuppet accounts.

When a single editor goes against the wishes of multiple other editors, and uses sockpuppets towards this end, disclipinary action becomes necessary. Samboy 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gene Poole

I believe that Johnski is using multiple accounts to give the appearance that more than one editor supports his actions in adding heavily pro-"Melchizedek" spin to as many artticles as he can possibly find in Wikipedia that have the slightest tangential relationship to what is in reality a micronation entity that has been widely condemned for being used as a vehicle for the conduct of criminal activities throughout the world.

It is telling that Johnski, SamuelSpade, KAJ and the various other anonymous IPs who have edited in favour of "Melchizededk" focus wholly and solely on the exact same group of articles, from their first edit, and appear to edit in sustained bursts of activity. None of these editors have made any other substantive contribution to Wikipedia beyond their edits to "Melchizedek"-related articles.

It is my personal belief that Johnski is probably the current "president" of Melchizedek, as he has a familiarity with this subject, and with the minutiae of court cases and other legal proceedings and historic events that no outsider would (a) be aware of, and (b) be so obsessively interested in. While his involvement in Melchizedek does not preclude him from contributing to this article, he has consistently failed to conform with the principles of evidence, NPOV and good faith - particularly in repeatedly trying to "spin" negative statements into positive ones by selectively misquoting media reports critical of "Melchizedek".

In doing so he has, in my opinion, forfeited the right to further participation in the Wikipedia community. --Gene_poole 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Gene_poole may be using multiple accounts as it has been pointed out that he has responded to messages to Centauri in the first person. Also, Shocktm may be another of his sock-puppets to give the appearance that more than one editor supports his actions in twisting facts about the Melchizedek story. He is known to be a part of a different micronation that hasn't achieved the same level of recognition as DOM, so he may be jealous of DOM since it was able to gain recognition while having tons of negative press against it. One most recent example is his refusal to stop mis-characterizing a Washington Post article changing the meaning from "you get the feeling" to "probably". Even when others in his group finally saw the need for correcting the reference, he refuses on the basis that it is easier reading. Who cares about misrepresenting the WP article if it is easier reading? seems his attitude.
I can't speak for others, but the article cries out for attention, and others since the arbitration was brought have noticed the same.
Gene's belief is not true, I am not the "president" of Melchizedek, as my only familiarity with this subject, and with court cases and other legal proceedings and historic events are all published, and it is Gene that isn't conforming to the principles of evidence, NPOV and good faith - particularly in repeatedly trying to "spin" negative statements into more negative ones by selectively misquoting media reports critical of "Melchizedek", and by removing valid quotes from U.S. government web sites. You would think that my bringing stuff to their attention previously unknown to them would get their respect. But knowing more than they know about the subject makes them better qualified to keep and guard the article only as they see fit.
While I don't think Gene has forfeited his right to participation in the Wikipedia community, he needs someone with authority here to help him understand that Wikipedian articles should quote sources correctly, and that articles need to be fair and balanced. Perhaps Gene is the real ringleader here, not Davidpdx, and Davidpx has only been an unwitting tool of Gene. Sincerely, Johnski 07:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out my comments were removed by one of the arbitration committee and I was told not to comment on others statements. I would hope this is treated the same. (yes and remove this comment too that's ok with me). Davidpdx 14:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if Johnski's rant above is retained or removed. Apart from its general entertainment value it's also a pretty good illustration of precisely why he's about to become the subject of arbitartion. --Gene_poole 05:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jdavidb

Samboy effectively speaks for me; his summary of this situation is the best, I think.

WP:SOCK states "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Sockpuppetry per se is not at all a big deal to me, and in fact in the past I've been one to push on other disputes for less attention to be given to that in favor of other charges. In this case, though, whether we are dealing with sockpuppets or meatpuppets, it's clear we are looking at "single-purpose account"s. This has made it impossible to try to push for real consensus to be built on what these articles should or should not say, since all these new single-purpose accounts try to involve themselves in the consensus.

Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dejvid

My main problem with Jonski et al is the way he uses references. Take the Washington Post article. He tried to claim to me that the Washington Post was saying that it was DOMs declaration of war against France. However the tittle of the article was "The Ruse that Roared." ie a clear reference to the miniscule state of the film not to the act of declaring war. After a few times of checking someones refs and finding they are putting a spin which contradicts the original you lose confidence with any edit he makes.Dejvid 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnski

Hello Kelly Martin, if you could help edit this article taking into consideration mine and others efforts to reduce the bias, and bring more balance, that could end the edit war.

I'll borrow from what I read on another subject as it says it better than I could write myself:

Davidpdx, their ringleader, has not made any contribution to any topic regarding this subject, other than Solkope. As soon as Samboy challenged him for that, he removed the content that Isotope23, KAJ and himself worked hard to reach consensus on. In some instances they have continued their POV approach on DOM to the detriment of other pages too. In essense, they have acted as POV warriors with a single viewpoint who have proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and have little interest in anything beyond their own view. (eg, only show negative aspects of Dominion of Melchizedek, and ignore anything else the press or governemnt web sites have put forth. Fundamentally they do not seem to show the slightest ability or care for collaborating in a wiki manner. Indeed their idea of collaboration is insults and ignoring or dismissal of issues, often with personal attacks and remarks.

Here are some problems encountered:

  • factual suppression
  • Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, government web sites, often followed by addition of more POV material.
  • Personal attacks
  • Ignoring of requests to discuss edits
  • Changing the words "you get the feeling" to "probably" when quoting the Washington Post, as one example.

When Davidpdx was first given the idea for mediation he took it as a threat, and was told that arbitration would be necessary if he didn't accept mediation. Finally he grabbed the ball and ran with it.

I've only used one of the IP addresses Davidpdx listed above, and I have no sockpuppets. I've offered to disclose my IP address, if he first agrees to disclose his after I disclose mine, but he will not comply. Made the same offer to a few others listed above. None have accepted.

I am not a Melchizedekian nor am I a member of the Pedley family. I am a Christian Scientist. I know that Jdavidb is at odds with my faith. The only thing I've been asking for is that the article become fair, balanced and factual. I've backed up every fact, and only tried to quote exactly from articles, government web sites, but that is not permitted by Davidpdx.

I created the article Wikilante as a sincere attempt to describe the vigilante behavior of Davidpdx, and told him that I'm sorry if he thought I was taunting him, and paid him a compliment for his efforts since he apparently is sincere as are vigilantes. I didn't try to create that article again after I realized that an administrator had deleted it a second time, and didn't know it was blocked.

Davidpdx claims that I didn't show anywhere that DOM claims earth, which shows he doesn't read my talk as I had just posted a link to the CBS article that stated that Melchizedek unofficially claims the entire earth, and claims Jerusalem as its homeland. Please take a look and see for yourself.

I tried hard to work for compromise with Davidpdx but it turned out he was only playing games with me, and had no such intention, which is evidenced from his lack of making any compromise on the main DOM article, but only finding reason not to compromise, having nothing to do with the facts, but only having to do with issues of my not following his idea of the rules, my being stupid, and being on LSD. I've never used LSD and although a slow learner, I doubt that I am stupid. And I have tried my best to follow the wiki rules as I slowly learn those rules.

I'm happy to get into all of the details of the efforts for a better article, but you can easily figure it out by looking at my last version compared to the one before it, and taking a look at the last talk page on DOM as of this date. Sincerely, Johnski 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from below section --[[Sam Korn]] 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by User:Spadesam

I am NOT anybody's sock, meat puppet, am NOT part of any organizational push. Only have seen needfor creating a better article. I changed my name three times, first it was Samspade, then SamuelSpade and now it should stay Spadesam. Spadesam 03:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser lookups

The IPs are widely geographically disparate. In most cases, one of the usernames uses just one or two of the IPs. (I'll mark these later.) I don't think it's all one person; the pattern is similar to that of agents of an organisation acting together, but I'd need to look closely at the editing style before saying it looks like that. More as I work out what on earth is going on here - David Gerard 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of fairness, you might want to check to see if there is any sockpuppetry from Davidpdx's side of this arbitration request, because I remember reading somewhere that Centauri is a sock-puppet of Gene_polle. Johnski 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Sam Korn re mediation

Basically, I suggested mediation was a bad idea (note that I didn't "reject" the request per se) because it appeared to be more of a request for sanctions against another user. The aggressive way in which it was phrased did not give me any impression that a mediation was likely to be successful. I was suggesting a user-conduct RFC, which I cannot see as having happened. From what I can see of the case, there are two groups of editors, who may or may not be sockpuppets, editing aggressively and communicating poorly. I only wish there were a way of dealing with edit-warring short of the full ArbCom salvo. [[Sam Korn]] 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

  • Accept to deal with edit warring. (But tread carefully on the sockpuppet claims; on preliminary investigation they do not check out.) Kelly Martin (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - whack them (all the sockpuppets/IPs except Johnski). No need for an arbcom case. If he (Johnski) won't behave, then whack him too. (For the record, I checked on the sockpuppeting allegations above and while I cannot confirm all of the above suspicions, it does look like sockpuppeting is going on) &rarr;Raul654 05:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure it's sockpuppetry per se - looks like it might be meatpuppets in the form of an organisational push. I'll get back to you all on this one - David Gerard 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept — looks like meat rather than socks ➥the Epopt 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TDC and 165.247.200.100

Confirmations

Awareness

Other steps

Statement by User:Travb

Since October 21, 2005 I have been involved with the page Winter Soldier Investigation. This page has been protected 9 times in ten months[336], once since I have been invovled with the page. Currently, User:TDC and anon have been the major players in revert wars. But other minor players have been recently involved with the editing of the page. The page has 421 deleted edits [337], I beleive many from User:Duk.

I attempted to set up a criticism section (which anon deletes full paragraphs from) and TDC is hooked on weaselwords, refusing to allow the word "testimony" to appear in the article. Neither wants to backdown or comprimise. Both are involved in retracted edit wars. Travb 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • TDC: TDC has been booted 13 times for similar revert wars [338]. See also Requests for comment/TDC-2[339], Requests for comment/TDC[340] [New] Requests for mediation TDC and Tony Sidaway [341]

User:TDC starts revert wars like the recent revert war on Winter Soldier Investigation on several wikipages, and was recently warned again by Tony Sidaway on 5 November 2005 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[342]

FIRST revert war: Because of a FIRST revert war[343] on Winter Soldier Investigation, which TDC started over long quotes, I erased many of the "superfluous use of direct quotations" (the reason why User:TDC erased many of the quotes) and moved them to wikiquote. This did not satisfy TDC.

SECOND war: TDC found a new, SECOND war. User:TDC and Duk then attempted to get the complete article Winter Soldier Investigation (along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War at the same time[344] erased for a "copyright violation" for no more than a maximum of 6 isolated sentences[345] that could be considered "copyright violations" in a 9 page article. I footnoted many of the copyright violations. AGAIN this did not satisfy TDC. User:Ed_Poor began to write the article from scratch, he even complained to User:Duk that "The first 4 paragraphs, having been written largely by me, can not posibly be considered a copyright violation."[346].(Earlier Copyvio banner) I stopped this attempt to rewrite the entire article by User:Ed_Poor with the participation of User:Sasquatch by filing a Mediation request[347]. User:Sasquatch and User:Ed_Poor changed the few sentences. User:Sasquatch protected the article on request[348] of User:TDC and User:Tony_Sidaway unlocked it a few days later.

THIRD revert war: User:TDC began a new THIRD revert war[349], this time over the word "testimony", which he did not want anywhere in the article, and other weaselwords such as "claimed", "alleged". TDC refuses to allow the word "testimony" to be in the article, and continues to revert back. I reported TDC to 3RR but there wasn't enough times to get him booted[350].

  • Anon: Anon is the other revert war participant. The opposite of User:TDC, he allows very little information critical of Winter Soldier Investigation to stay on the wikipage. Deleted link critical to WSI and two paragraphs critical of WSI[351]

I suggested spliting the article into a pro and con section, with a commitment from both parties that the other person only edit that section, but Anon refused[352].

User:TDC reported Anon to 3RR. I initially supported Anon, then realized Anon was as guilty of revert wars and deleting information that does not support his ideology, just as TDC does. I then retracted my support for Anon too on the 3RR page[353].


Conclusion: Incredibly all three of these revert wars perpetuated by TDC have only been since October 21, a space of 20 days. While you are at it, maybe you can arbitrate Vietnam Veterans Against the War[354] with the same perps and the same issues. Please help. (I hope I did this right, this is my first Requests for arbitration.)

Request for injunction

I suggest that:

UPDATE: User:TDC reported anon for a 3RR on Winter Soldier Investigation, [355] the second time in a month, both accuse each other of lying. Anon is erasing the dispute tag [356] The bitter revert war continues...

Statement by User:TDC

Contrary to the allegations made by Stevertigo and Travb, this is not an attempt to have the article erased or to have a certain POV dominate it, only to clear up glaring NPOV issues, remove copyvios and plagiarism and improve the quality of the article. Let me repeat that for some of the editors who are questioning my motives : THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE ARTICLE ERASED OR TO HAVE A CERTAIN POV DOMINATE IT.

The problem with using so much cut and paste, as has been more than well documented, is that the information is plagiarized from sources overly sympathetic to the VVAW (including the VVAW’s own website) and the WSI. The inclusion of this information in its current form fundamentally alters the NOPV of the article. Why some editors cannot see this is beyond me. Would we allow an article on GW Bush to be comprised almost entirely of press briefings from the White House? Would we allow an article about PETA to consist primarily of quotes from PETA friendly sources? That’s all I am asking for here.

I think that a history lesson on the article might be in order. The anon began contributing to this article sometime in July of 2004. He has had a pretty consistent tactic. He takes out any information he disagrees with, places it in talk and begins an never ending argument of either the validity of the information, or the relevance to the article. Almost as soon as he began contributing to the article, editors began to draw attention to his use of plagiarized material [357]. Just in case any of you missed that, I was not the first editor to argue that the Anon’s use of plagiarized material was skewing the POV of the article. The anon then protects his edits using never ending and deceptively labeled Rv’s. Since he is using an EarthLink IP, he cannot be blocked, no matter how flagrant his violation is (he had 15rv’s in one day on another article), giving him impunity from any form of sanctions on his behavior.

I know Travb has accused me of instigating an edit war over this article, and he is partially right. There currently exists an edit war over this article, but I fail to see how I am chiefly responsible for it. Where other editors have given up in frustration, I refuse to drop the issue and walk away from the article. Some might say I am being a POV warrior here, I call it diligence. The talk page has 1 current page and three archived pages full of lengthy discussions that have not solved a damn thing. The plagiarized material still finds its way into the article and any information the anon is uncomfortable with finds its way out. One section, 540 words, is nothing more than a lengthy quote from a VVAW friendly author.

I have said before that I would abide by whatever decision is made. Not only do you have my promise, but you can sanction me if I don’t. Good luck getting the anon to do likewise. TDC 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add, what I think is one of the best examples of the Anon's deceptive editing and plagarism:

New York Times explained that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." There were a smattering of articles sympathetic to the veterans in the underground press; and Pacifica Radio, with major channels on both coasts, devoted to a pacifist, left-wing perspective on current events, gave them excellent coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were themselves deeply impressed, but none of their footage made it to the nightly news. source

from the WSI Wikipedia article

The local field reporter for the "New York Times," Jerry M. Flint, commented with disinterest, "this stuff happens in all wars." In a February 7, 1971 article he wrote that "much of what they said had been reported or televised before, even from Vietnam. What was different here was the number of veterans present." Several of the VVAW representatives speculated that there was an "official censorship blackout," and they would express this theory later in their newsletter. A few articles that were sympathetic to the veterans appeared in lesser-known publications, and Pacifica Radio, known for its left-wing perspective, gave the event considerable coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were impressed, but only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night -- three minutes that were "mostly irrelevant to the subject," according to VVAW.

Instead of rewriting and crediting the information, the anon has simply rearranged a few sentences and changed significant factual portions of the plagiarized work, i.e: but none of their footage made it to the nightly news as has been changed to only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night. I mean which one is it? The source that the material was clearly ripped off from states something completely different. And I am bieng singled out for bad faith edits? TDC 17:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more quick point (last one): If there weren’t users like me to balance out blatant POV's in far too many articles to count, it wouldn’t get done. TDC 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:165.247.200.100

Please limit your statement to 500 words (more soon)

Statement by User:Calton

I am only peripherally involved, but I would like to add one item to User:Travb's account above, which convinced me of bad faith being involved in the "Second Edit War" above: namely that when User:Ed Poor began writing a new article , his initial from scratch version was blanked 31 minutes later by User:Duk on grounds of being a "copyvio". --Calton | Talk 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Duk

Calton is flat out wrong here. This diff shows that Ed did not re-write the article from scratch. The version I tagged after Ed's edits had copyvios that were initially identified at Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive3#Copyvio_and_derivatives.2C_again, with more and more being noted on the talk page as they were uncovered. Many of these copyvios originated more than a year earlier and kept sneaking back into the article after an earlier copyvio revert. They included copied text and derivative work.

This article had large amounts of copied work in it for over a year that was eventually morphed (in August I think), so that the copied paragraphs weren't exact copies. There were still copied sentences, clauses and paragraph structure, however, and the article was never reverted to the pre-copivio version before the morphing. It was therefor a derivative work copyvio. I resolved the copyvio after a long listing on WP:CP by reverting to the pre-copyvio version. Later, the copied and derivative work kept sneaking back into the article, resulting in my tagging the page and at one time protecting it to keep the copyvio tag on.

For example; take the phrase that an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into that neutral nation. It was from a paragraph that was added to the page as a copyvio from bigmagic.com, sometime before this version, more than a year ago. It was removed when I resolved the copyvio by reverting to this version, and reappeared again, resulting the the copyvio tagging that Carlton mentions above. This phrase by itself isn't much, rather, its the numerous other examples of copied text that were identified in the article's talk page (a bunch more were identified over the following weeks). Also, look at the derivative writing around the directly copied parts.

I've been called a lot of nasty names over this copyvio by people who think I have a political agenda, to which I reply that I have resolved thousands of copyvios but have almost no politically oriented edits (if anyone cares to look). Also, the harshest comments seem to come people who haven't taken the time to look closely at the article's history.

As for Travb's complaint over the deleted history, I did that per advice from the administrators noticeboard. --Duk 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, a half hour later after adding Duk, I have removed Duk as a central person in the arbitration. Duk, see your talk page.Travb 03:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyvios just keep showing up, one after the other, over and over again. And every time they get removed, or the article tagged, charges of POV, intellectual dishonesty and hidden agendas are made against the people cleaning up the mess. --Duk 00:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tony (below), TDC's behavior has been pretty bad. And I'd like to add that this behavior is responsible, in part, for the many editors and admins discounting TDC's identification of copied and derived text, assuming instead that it was another one of his stunts. However, as bad as TDC's behavior has been, the EarthLink IP's behavior has been much, much worse. Intentionally introducing plagiarism and copyright violations from slanted, POV sources in order to advance their own POV. Then, when the copyvios are uncovered, morphing them into slightly different derivative works which are also copyright violations, just harder to catch. And doing all this while editing under different IPs to remain untouchable for behavior that they know is wrong. So far, the EarthLink IPs have completely gotten away with it. --Duk 16:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Stevertigo

User:TDC has been a consistent and active foe and violator of Wikipedias NPOV policy in controversial areas and topics such as this one. He should be banned from editing any and all controversial topics related to U.S. military conflict. As stated above he has been consistent in using revert wars, policy and process rules (copyviolation, protection, 3RR, etc.) to POV war against the very existence of an article. How the Arbcom has managed to avoid banning him until now should be taken as evidence of the need for WP:DRR. -St|eve 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

This seems to be a case of an editor deliberately choosing to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. I have tried to rein back the edit warring. TDC sometimes goes for the better part of a week apparently going down his watchlist and doing reverts. A month or two ago I blocked TDC for a couple of days, and more recently I admonished him, and he seemed to get the point and stop. Although others are involved, when TDC stops the warring stops. Past experience leads me to the expectation that he will simply wait until my attention is elsewhere and resume. 08:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


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

Requests for Clarification

The Bogdanov Affair case, recently closed

There are a few outstanding issues which I would be most grateful if the Committee would please clarify for me regarding the status of the accounts which were banned under the former temporary injunction. Since I was requested by Fred to make the various blocks on the temporary injunction, it means I have been receiving the e-mail dialogue from the parties wishing to be unbanned, and as a consequence of the recent closing of the case a few have written to me asking to be unbanned. My queries are as follows:

  1. The final remedy decided upon by the Committee has been that the various Bogdanov Affair participants are indefinitely banned from the article itself. The previous temporary injunction was that they were banned indefinitely from Wikipedia; since this has now been replaced with only an article editing ban, does this mean all of those users are now entitled to edit Wikipedia, and thus should be unblocked?
  2. A specific user, XAL (talk · contribs) was initially banned by Fred prior to the passing of the injunction, although she is named in it. If the above is true, that is the users should now be unblocked, should XAL also be unblocked or is she a special case due to Fred's direct involvement?
  3. Also, XAL has never edited the article, but has only been involved in the talk page. She has never edited the Bogdanov Affair article itself; there are a number of other users like this. Does this mean they fall outside of the purview of the enforcement decision? That is, is the ban from editing the article to be taken to also refer to the talk page? If not, we shall have to suffer a repeat of the whole talk page débâcle once again, since the users currently indefinitely blocked from editing shall be able to legitimately edit the talk page, and thus we may end up with yet another arbcom case about their talk page editing.
  4. Regarding the decision on enforcement: "Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Wikipedia entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year." Since it was I who set the blocks, it must likewise be my duty to unset them. Also, others have indefinitely blocked a multitude of sockpuppets of Igor Bogdanov. Does that mean that I must go through the contributions of all of the users who have been indefinitely blocked, change those bans on users with 5 offenses or more to a year's ban, and unban the rest? (since, after all, they have been blocked for longer than 1 week). Also, this decision is liable to give rise to a whole load of Bogdanov sockpuppets that are discarded after they have been used for 5 offenses. If this really is what the admins involved must do, this would be a most laborious task considering the vast numbers of sockpuppets used.
  5. No decision has been made regarding the page protection. The present scenario of having to revert changes, and protect the article regularly, due to banned users editing is most unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, the article will need to be protected more often as a result of the above enforcement decision, since we shall not be able to block sockpuppets solely on the basis of name or after having made only a few edits which blatantly disclaim who is operating the account.

I am most grateful for the Committee's work on this matter, and would appreciate an expeditious response since I have been receiving some consternation from various blocked users via e-mail. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock anyone who is blocked but who has not been trying to edit the article. Those who you are sure have been trying to edit the article during the injunction, need not be unblocked. Please don't unblock XAL. I'll try to help you with this tomorrow. Fred Bauder 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are responsible for this mess. You only need to unblock folks when you have time. Fred Bauder 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber

I'd appreciate some clarification of the ruling on User:Yuber. He has been revert warring at Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syrian occupation of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and History of Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleting properly sourced and relevant information. I protected three of the above recently and 40 minutes after I unprotected, he reverted one of them again. [358]

He has also created Israeli occupation of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an apparent WP:POINT, because he failed in his efforts to have Syrian occupation of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) moved (or moved back) to "Syrian presence in Lebanon".

I want to warn him that he may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber decision, but I'm not clear whether he is. Under "remedies," the ruling is limited to Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Yuber is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article which relates to Islam or to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing ... [359]

But under "enforcement," it seems to apply to any article:

Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that Yuber be banned from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template Template:Yuber banned at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Yuber on his talk page ... [360]

So my question is: are Syria, History of Syria, Lebanon, Syrian occupation of Lebanon and Israeli occupation of Lebanon covered by the ruling? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered by the enforcement provision, yes. Raul654 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Raul. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder and the current Motion to Close

I looked on the /Proposed Decision page for Maoririder, and it seems odd to me that there is a MtC when there is currently nothing (only templates) in the "Proposed remedies" and "Proposed enforcement" sections. Can someone explain this?

Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=28823610"