Case Opened on 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Jcoonrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jmabel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Descendall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe."--Jcoonrod 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/The_Hunger_Project

Statement by Jcoonrod

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

For the past month, user Smeelgova has daily inserted large amounts of negative material to The Hunger Project (THP) and related pages such as Joan Holmes, Robert W. Fuller and others. All of this material has been presented in ways to imply an improper relationship between THP and one of its founders, Werner Erhard. Most of the material consists of references to anti-cult websites which, in itself, casts aspersions on our integrity. We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but Smeelgova insists that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance." The Hunger Project has always been an independent organization which has never used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger, as verified by independent auditors every year of our existence. To state or imply otherwise is false and libelous, and could do material harm to The Hunger Project by raising doubts in the minds of current or potential donors. This issue was litigated in the courts from 1986-1989 (see | press release). The court found the allegations to be false and unfounded and awarded damages to The Hunger Project. We request the arbitrators to establish and freeze accurate and non-defamatory entries on The Hunger Project, Joan Holmes and other individuals associated with The Hunger Project and remove the history and discussion sections. We provide a sample for the arbitrators to consider at my sandbox.--Jcoonrod 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeelgova

Quoting Wikipedia Administrator --Jmabel :

I realize that I'm not a party to the mediation -- perhaps I should be,
since I seem to be becoming engaged, if only indirectly. The answer is: we're an encyclopedia. The origins of the organization, and what it was 30 years ago, should be of as much relevance as what it has become. The organization was, if anything, higher profile at that time. It was innovative, for better or worse, in being an organization that decided that fighting hunger did not necessarily mean feeding people. It innovatived a tactic on college campuses to get students to fast for a day and donate the money that they otherwise would have spent on food. It was part of a transformation of activist politics away from confrontation and more toward a focus on transforming oneself. I honestly think that the story of the Hunger Project in its first 10 years is of much more significance than its history since, and not in terms of a hatchet job. It was something new, it had its pluses and minuses, it is worth understanding as part of the history of charity and activism. Its present is much less interesting, basically "just another non-profit".
Again, you may feel completely free to quote me, again preferably in full.

I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling in the quotation from me above; it is otherwise accurate (and the misspellings may have been in the original). - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that the context of my remarks is unclear here. This was in answer to a question to the effect of "why should we be interested in things that happened 30 years ago?" - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally resent the negative-faith attacks that Jcoonrod has made against me in the past month. I do apologize for copying a comment from a prior editor back into the article, stating that "The Hunger Project regularly edits Wikipedia." However, I have attempted to utilize reputable sources for all of the historical documentation, and to cite said sources with endnote references and blockquote citations. In this manner, I have tried to let the language used by the sources speak for themselves, rather than paraphrasing my own POV into the mix. As to the relevance of the history of the organization and legality of sources I refer to comment above. Recent debated sourced citations have come from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, by David Weir and Dan Noyes, published by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and not from The London Times.Smeelgova 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmabel

Since I seem to have become involved in a minor way, I am naming myself as an additional party to the arbitration. For the most part, I am interested in this as a content issue. Obviously, if a court has ruled Mother Jones's or Weir's statements as libelous, then they do not belong in the article, but I do not believe that to be the case, and both MJ and a book published by Addison-Wesley would usually be considered reliable sources. As indicated above (quoted by Smeelgova), I consider the early years of THP to be of considerable historical interest, and therefore of encyclopedic importance.

The fact that someone else was once convicted of libel (in the UK) for something they said about THP may be relevant to whether this material should be included, but only if what they said was substantively the same as this material. In particular, I gather that in MJ's account of matters, they say that THP's links to est were reduced shortly after their article, so a court ruling that similar accusations about practices at a considerably later date were libelous may not impugn MJ's story, although certainly THP's winning the libel suit would deserve prominent mention, as would any formal response THP may have made to MJ's story. Not being ruled libelous wouldn't necessarily make the MJ story correct, but I believe it would make it citable, since I cannot see any other arguement against citing it (similarly for Weir).

One last thing: I would like to remind all involved of Wikipedia:No legal threats. If I read things correctly, there has been at least an implication of a legal threat here, and before any sort of mediation or arbitration was attempted. As I read that policy, a contributor may not both threaten legal action and continue to participate in editing articles. It's one or the other. If the arbitrators tell me otherwise, I'll defer to them, but I would request that this be one of the points they take up. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pedant17

If permitted, I should like to add myself as an interested party to any eventual arbitration on the editing of The Hunger Project. I claim an interest as an early and intermittent editor of the article and as a party in the proposed (but yet to eventuate) mediation on the same article. - My principal concerns in this matter relate to apparent attempts to censor documented and sourced content relating to the topic of The Hunger Project.The Wikiquette official Wikipedia guideline page reminds us: "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". I do not regard vague legal posturing, assertions of minimal public interest in a topic, or corporate image-maintenance as legitimate excuses for deletionism, for information-ghettoization, for cleansing the public record of uncomfortable memories, or for a static approach to content in an independent online encyclopedia. Nor do I approve a sudden rush to arbitration when a process of preparing for an agreed mediation has commenced.I particularly deplore inherently POV structures which label their content as "criticism" or as "opposition" viewpoints: we can build better structures for including discussion and opinions wherever relevant. Imposed brevity does not seem like a good goal for a Wikipedia article, and the inclusion of refutations without the original accusations can give an appearence of bias. And the deletion of Talk-page material I regard as particularly reprehensible. - With regard to the suggestion of axe-grinding, I contend that several distinct parties may have axes to grind, but that Wikipedia has room for them all in this article. - Precedents exist for responding to attempts Hunger Project staff to rewrite history: note the article "The Hunger Project attempts to purge criticism and history from the Internet" -- Pedant17 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Descendall

Although I was not originally a party to this request for arbitration, I have been added as one. The original complaint had nothing to do with me, but I think that the editors on the Arbitration Committee might be interested in my take on this matter. I want to stress that I really have no strong feelings on The Hunger Project or on the article about it on Wikipedia. However, I have edited the article on The Hunger Project multiple times. I am concerned that Jcoonrod is editing wikipedia in a manner that violates the spirit of neutrality.

First, I think it is important to point out that Jcoonrod "is [the] vice president and chief operating officer of The Hunger Project."[1] I do not have any objections to someone affiliated with The Hunger Project editing this article per se. I think that the real problem is that Jcoonrad does not detach himself from The Hunger Project when he edits this article.

To demonstrate what I mean, allow me to offer an example. Wikipedia allows Americans to edit the article on the United States. However, it expects these Americans to abandon any patriotic sentiments and edit in an objective way.

Jcoonrod should certainly be allowed to edit The Hunger Project, but he should abandon his desire to write from the point of view of the Vice President of the organization. I do not think that Jcoonrod has done so. To some extant, this is obvious: Jcoonrod refers to The Hunger Project in the first person. Note that in this very request he states the The Hunger Project has undergone audits "every year of our existence." (emphasis added).

But worse, he seems to edit out any record of anyone disagreeing with the official THP line. I believe that this diff is perhaps the most egregious example of Jcooncod unilaterally deleting discussion about the article in an attempt make it seem as if no one objected to his version of the article.

I would also like to warn that THP has come under heavy criticism for attempting to tangle its detractors up in a big ball of litigation. I fear that the same thing is essentially happening on Wikipedia. Please note that The Hunger Project is currently undergoing mediation. I believe that arbitration will undermine the mediation. It is certainly hard to continue to assume good faith when Jcoonrod has made it such a headache to edit The Hunger Project in an objective way that any normal person would be tempted to just give it up an let his version of the article run unedited.

These are my thoughts on the matter, and I hope they help the arbitrators see the matter in a different light. --Descendall 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

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

Accept having received what I asked for wrt. showing me that there are issues outside content dispute. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Reject for now. Appears to be a content dispute outside of the remit of the arbitration committee. Show me otherwise and I'm open to changing my mind on acceptance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. SimonP 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept.--Charles Matthews 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Adequate references

1) References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article.