Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Selmo

LSLM is uncivil

LSLM has engaged in personal attacks and other uncivil behaviour.

"Revertin continuous Lukas POV pushing"
"I think you a Galician nationalist who does not speak the truth."
more bad faith POV pushing accusations
"I knew Dark Nazi Nordicist agenda was behind this again" — Selmo ^(talk) 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by LSLM

This user, Lukas and others should be banned from Wiki for harassing others and for using it for political-racialist propaganda.

Just visit the white people page, you will find there plenty of evidence of the POV pushing of some of these users. See also this, where you can see interesting comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/LSLM

I have nothing else to add. Veritas et Severitas 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Comment moved from Selmo's section to user's own section. User:LSLM signs posts as "Veritas et Severitas". Newyorkbrad 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Lukas19

About LSLM

Just some, not all:

Personal Attacks against Lukas19 and Dark T After RfC

"Wrong with it is that he just keeps manipulating everything and will not give it up. I have already engaged with him a thousand times. His comments are not worth anything for me anymore. With such a big agenda and neurosis it is impossible to work. But if you want, like all the users above who seem to have already gotten tired of arguing with him, go ahead and good luck." [2],
Implicit attacks [3],
"Shall we call him a Nazi, just a White Supremacist/Nordicist Propagandist or just shut up. I am sorry, but I can see the issue very clearly and I am no genius."[4],
"but people do not seem to care much, which gives me the impression of the quality of some people in Wiki."[5],
Calling people radicals and then saying: "My opinion is because it is one of the few places where radicals usually despised by society can find a place where they are heard and can come forward to spread propaganda and often most people do not even care, under the umbrella of "citations" and "civility""[6],
Calling me Nazi again [7], despite it has been explained: [8] [9] [10]

Personal attacks against Lukas19 and Dark T before RfC

"...IF YOU WANT TO LET THESE NAZIS CONTAMINATE THIS PLACE THAT IS GOING TO BE GREAT..."[11]
Unjustified "warning" sections about my edits [12] [13] [14]
This is all he can say when his unjustified accusations are answered: "nother of your big lies my friend. check it again" [15]
This seems to be a POINT violation: [16]
Comments which may be considered racist [17]
"...Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles...."[18] which is a lie, there is no such thing in Europe and his IP is American.
"Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea.....Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.....let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence."[19]
More proof of his disruptive behaviour can be found.

Personal attacks against others

"My friend a minimum intelligence is required to see it. If you do not see little red spots that even a child can see, no hope. Still, I am just quoting, something that for some reasons you do not like either. Never mind, I am tired of people like you in Wiki who are suffering so much with these results" [20]
This one is a quite recent example: [21]
This is the example of how easily he makes personal attacks to whom he disagrees with. Here, he talks with his former "ally": "He claims that he is a humanist and all that. Do not be fooled. He is a Basque Fascist and a Basque radical. Just read his contributions. Of course anyone can be whatever they desire, but it is good to know people who are editing so mcuh in this place. This is Veritas. I got blocked because of the machinations of this guy too and because I am sincere enough to call things by their name." [22] Note: As explained below, the IP has same location with LSLM.
Calling another editor a nazi and "...I leave you here with this pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki. It is impossible to work seriously in these articles with people of this ilk." [23]

Other Disrutive Behaviour

Racist vandalism: "People have also called the white race Stupid Whitey or Honky. Also the word Cracker" [24] Note: IP has the same location with LSLM [25] [26]
Evaded a block (These diffs show further evidence why some IPs are LSLM): [27], [28],[29],[30]
Evaded a block again: [31]
More vandalism [32]
Despite the fact that he claims that he forgets to sign on (and this is very often), he may be continueing to abusing this. And after the RfC has been filed: [33] "Reverting Lukas POV pushing against LSM, Carwill and Behnam" This is clearly the IP of LSLM, but initially he said POV pushing against LSL(M). Unless he refers to himself in third person, it looks like he is trying to make it look like that there is actually more support for his unexplained reverts.

Response to Wobble

Incivil Behaviour

Indeed, this edit: [34] was not very civil. However it should be put in context. That was one of the worst things I have said and my incivil behaviour has been rare. I try to concentrate on content. And what I have said to Wobble (Alun) pales in comparison to what Wobble has said. His personal attacks have been consistent:

Than after saying me if I can "be bothered to think outside of your narrow racialist perspective" [35], he says "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." "you just want to make claims that science supports your racist ideas" "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me)." While commenting on neo nazis may be acceptable, he correlates it with racists after commenting on my "racist ideas" and after calling me "Ah well my little nordicist friend". Clearly, there are bunch of insults in these two edits: [36] [37], especially considering things like " Indeed I might go so far as to say that being considered silly by someone with your opinions makes me rather a decent chap". And I never called him silly.
called me "moron" [38], "pest, whiner, etc...", calling admins my puppets [39], "racist scum, etc..." [40]
"Lukas19's racist POV pushing seems to be supported by the majority of admins here on Wikipedia. Might as well change it to Racistbastardsopedia as far as I can see. Fuck it, I can do without this abuse from racist fascists bastards spreading their obnoxious lies. If you support it, then more fool you." [41]
More examples may be provided.

He also harasses me. For ex, on other people's pages after my comments which had nothing to do with him. [42] (He usually makes fun of my English, despite knowing that it is not my native tongue.) Or after my edits whose summaries had no mention of him. [43]

POV Pushing

Notice that Wobble accuses me of failing to add some information at some of my edits. NOT deleting information. He also accuses me of never assuming good faith in others. I wonder if this is actually the case with him. First of all, I think it is unreasonable to expect from ANY editor to write perfectly neutral additions with a single edit, every time. I do forget to add some information. But I DO NOT object their addition. And I TRY to be neutral. This is the text I proposed in White people meditation: [44] You can see I tried to include all POVs. Let's go by Wobble examples.

1) English people: Now look at the Origins section and then genetics subsection of this version: [45]. It is claimed that: "most English people (about 2/3) and most Britons (about 3/4) actually descend from the Iberian Peninsula". Now if this is the case, if British descend from Iberians, it is reasonable to assume that Iberians and British cluster together on the basis of genetic similarity. But this is not the case. British cluster with Northern Europeans. So I tried to give an alternate POV by this edit: [46] Indeed, this point was raised by another editor as well. S/He said:

Whereas most genetic research on British Isles populations has focused on only one or two (Y chromosome, mtDNA), or very few, loci, the American Journal of Human Genetics website has just made available a preprint of a study of European population stratification based on 10,000 markers from across the whole genome (link, subscription required). Contrary to the Iberocentric theory of British origins, the results of Bauchet et al. show a rather conspicuous lack of Iberian elements in the Irish and English samples. See Figure 2b from the study. [47]

So you can clearly see that my edit was relevant to the article. It was not to push a POV but was to actually counter POV pushing by Wobble, LSLM and others. User:Opie says: "Surely there will be much research relating to this issue in the near future, but for now this article should not give the impression that the issue is anywhere close to being settled." (talking about Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland) And that was the case with the English article. The Iberian origin argument was presented without any counter argument!

2) Human genetic variation: My edit: [48] was because of the fact that I confused human genetic variation with genetic difference. I have kinda admitted this here: [49]

And indeed, Edwards says: "In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations..." right at the beginning of his article, so you can understand my mistake. And it should be noted that my edit was actually a copy & paste from Race and genetics. Most of what I have copy & pasted was written by Wobble himself.

These are just two examples. If you are any fair, you'd see that the claim about me being a POV pusher and compromising the integrity of Wikipeda is a VERY QUESTIONABLE claim. I reject this 100%. I may have a POV but so does everyone. For ex, Wobble. According to User:Epf, Wobble self identifies as "far left-wing extremist". An IP puts it as "the threads above feature an abundance of sources, some of which appear to contradict the only one" Wobble appears to be "capable of paraphrasing". [50] He also thinks Wobble's dismissal "of the linguistic evidence is unscholarly" and etc etc. [51] User:Epf puts it like this: [52] after being accused by Wobble of being indecent and implications of being a Nazi, as usual.

My final word would be to ask you to contrast White people page currently and its version here: [53] before my first edit, [54], under User:Thulean.

Response to Wobble

"neither of these papers actually claim that their observations are incompatible with an Iberian origin for British people."

Neither did I make any claim that those papers claimed such a thing. I just quoted those papers because I thought it was relevant. And indeed it was, as the annonymous User put it eloquently.

About human genetic variation, Edwards' quote was still relevant because he claimed "In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations..." based on Lewontin's work. What I should have done was to change wording of my edit and explain how human genetic variation is measured (looking at single loci at a time, without analysing correlations.) But my edit to human genetic variation was almost two weeks ago before my edit to race and genetics talk page. So I have forgotten.

As you can see, the claim that I was delibrately trying to comprimise the integrity of the Wikipeadia is a very questionable one. Most of my edits have been to White people article and I was considering to have it peer reviewed after the meditation to apply for FA status.

Evidence presented by User:Wobble

POV pushing by Lukas19

Both of these editors are inveterate POV pushers, but in my opinion Lukas19 pushes his POV to such an extent that he really does compromise the integrity of Wikipeda. He's agressive and obstinate during talk page discussions and tries to belittle or provoke other users, example. An old hand at edit waring, Lukas19 has a habbit of calling any edit he disagrees with "vandalism" (vandalism warning for this edit, this edit is clearly not vandalism). Lukas19 likes to include very long quotations without providing context, and often fails to include information from the same source that does not agree with his own POV, giving the impression that the source supports a spcific point of view unambiguously. For example in this edit Lukas19 claims that the observation made by Richard Lewontin and others that human genetic variation is greatest at the within group level is described as "unwarranted" by A. W. F. Edwards. This is incorrect, Edwards does not make this claim at all. What Edwards actually says is

it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted.[55]

So it's unwarranted to conclude that humans cannot be apportioned into groups based on genetic differences, it's not unwarranted to claim that the majority of variation is at the within group level, and it's not unwarranted to claim that human genetic variation is smaller than that of other mammals. Lukas19 made this edit to the English people article, it is typical of his editing style, the inclusion of a relatively long quote, without any discussion of context, nor any explanation of the purpose of the research. This was to a section of the article that discussed English origins, the paper Lukas19 quotes makes no mention whatsoever of the origins of English people. Lukas19 seems to have a POV to push about northern Europeans, I do not know what his personal opinion is regarding northern Europeans, but he certainly has some sort of POV to push. He has used the same source Seldin et al. to add long, out of context quotes to other articles. For example he made this edit to the article Genetic history of Europe. This is "classic" Lukas19, quotation without explanation. What is particularly informative about this edit is what he omits from the paper, the paper clearly shows that Europeans split into three groups, with Finnish people forming a seperate cluster, but this does not support the POV that Lukas19 wants to push, so he does not add this information. The result is that the article gives a bias in favour of Lukas19's POV, which seems to be that there is an unambiguous "northern European race". Here's what the article actually says

The Finnish participants were a notable exception in that 11 of 12 individuals showed predominant affiliation with a unique population group (cluster) when the number of groups (k) set in the STRUCTURE analysis was greater than 7.

Lukas19 also made an edit to the same article where he includes information from a second, more recent paper concerning European population stratification. He again fails to mention the seperate clustering of Finns, even though this is an important observation, I wonder if it is because the paper states

Furthermore, PC3 and PC4 emphasize the separation of the Basques and Finns, respectively, from other Europeans......In line with their non–Indo-European Uralic language and previous study of their Y-chromosomes, the Finns show evidence of an increased affinity to the Central Asian populations when placed in an intercontinental context

I have just given a few examples here of what is persistent POV pushing and tendentious editing by Lukas19. I have not included long lists of examples or made much reference to his agressive and bullying attitude on talk pages, anyone can take a look at Lukas19's edit history to confirm that these examples are not unusual, but represnt the normal pattern of behaviour for this editor. In conclusion I would say that in my experience Lukas19 is not interested in neutrality, neither is he interested in writing informative articles. He never assumes good faith with others and seems to have little or no interest in reaching consensus, rather he views talk pages as his battleground. He omits information that does not support his POV, icludes information out of context so it appears to support a POV, or appears to support a POV unambiguously, when the original source does no such thing, and aggressively pursues editors who disagree with him, Lukas19 is a master at prooftexting, quote mining and contextomy. User:Wobble 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lukas19

Well I didn't want to get into specifics, I've given a couple of examples of Lukas19's POV pushing, it wasn't intended to be a comprehensive list. I do want to respond to what he sais above because I think he is wrong.

1 Lukas19 seems to be claiming that the theory of an Iberian origin of British and English people is contradicted by the papers he has quoted. But I think that the point is that neither of these papers actually claim that their observations are incompatible with an Iberian origin for British people. Indeed Lukas19 is introducing something very close to original research in my opinion. He is including an out of context quote in the English people article as if the article he is citing actually contradicts the theory of an Iberian origin for British people. Neither Bauchet nor Seldin make this claim. Seldin and Bauchet's data do not contradict the Y chromosome and mt DNA data. Lukas19 is trying to claim that they do, so this amounts to his personal interpretation of these data. He claims that the "Iberian origin argument was presented without counterargument", but he does not provide a counterargument, he provides an out of quotation from a paper which makes no reference to the Iberian origins theory. He does this in such a way as to imply that this quote contradicts the Iberian origin theory.

2 His Edit was to Human genetic variation,22 Feb what he "kind of admits" is in Race and genetics 6 Mar, so these diffs relate to different articles. Indeed if he addmits his mistake on 6 March why is it that I have to make the correction on the 22 March? Maybe what he copied and pasted was writen by me, but I was addressing the question of classification originally, not of the distribution of variation, so he has used it in completely the wrong context. Alun 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same annonymous User on Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland also states later on (while addressing LSLM) I'll also add that you haven't contributed enough to this discussion, or yet demonstrated any particular expertise. And since Alun now has (much to my surprise), this brings your role into question - What exactly are you doing here? [56] so the annonymous user later decides I've displayed some expertise for the subject. Alun 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are more things I could say. Because of the habit of constantly refering to Multilocus allele clusters, I thought I would have a go at explaining how it works as a concept. This was basically me just trying to explain some jargon in an understandable way. See {{Template:Infobox multi locus allele clusters}}. I thought this would help people's understanding of the concept involved when articles refered to things like "clusters". I was qute happy with the results, graphics and such like things not being a particular forte of mine. As soon as I had made it Lukas19 imediatelly started to criticise it for being "POV", which seemsed like an odd comment because it was only an explanation of a statistical technique. [57] He later claims that the infobox refers to genetic "clines" but not genetic clusters,[58] but this was simply not true, the infobox certainly did refer to both clines and clusters, as I pointed out to him. [59] He also made an edit to the infobox, claiming that it was more neutral, but it actually removed some vital information, which is that these sorts of observations are highly dependent upon sample size and sample distribution, sampling from geographically distant regions will always produce more discrete "clustering" and therefore more discrete populations. [60] I think that Lukas19 didn't like the infobox because he was using his arguments about "clusters" and multi-locus alleles as an Appeal to authority argument. I think he did not like the infobox because it is immediately apparent that populations can share exactly the same set of genes (at different frequencies) and still be categorised using this system, it is the distribution of the genes that causes the clustering, not the fact that the populations have different gene sets, so it highlights the fact that populations can actually be genetically very similar and still be categorised, whereas Lukas19 wants to claim that this work shows that human populations are very different to each other, no scientific research does this, or claims this, but Lukas19 keeps trying to insinuate that this is the case. Alun 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas19 incivility

Lukas claims that his incivil behaviour is rare, but he has a long history of calling other editors contributions stupid or silly. Indeed one of the first times I had any dealings with him he called me clueless, he also calls other editors "vandals". Often he responds by claiming that he is describing their behaviour as stupid or vandalism, arther than calling the editor stupid or a vandal. This is mere sophistry as far as I can see. He also likes to tell other editors tht they cannot read if they disagree with him. Here is a far from comprehensive list:

what can't you get into your head

Lukas19 also claims that I have a "vendetta" against him.diff I find this odd because he has reported me to PAIN three times and to AN/I twice, both times to no effect. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] I have never reported him for any of his breaches of policy. Indeed one can see just how litigous this editor is here, whereas I think I have only ever reported someone to a notice board once or twice.[66] So I think there is a case that Lukas19 also engages in wikilawyering.

As for Lukas19's accusations that I am not always civil, well I admit it, he is a very difficult person to deal with, he deliberately tries to provoke other editors, and I admit I have allowed myself to get angry. I'm not proud of this, but neither do I claim to be perfect. I think the difference is that I freely admit that I have made mistakes, and I do not see any real merit in using systems like PAIN, AN/I, RfC and RfA to solve disputes, I tend to try and avoid them if I can. I have made mistakes, and I have appologised for the mistakes I have made.[67] Epf and I are old sparing partners, we disagree about nearly everything. I also think we respect each other. My comment to Epf was about this remark that he made, which I found to be particularly insulting about me. It also supported Lukas19's attempts to remove any mention of Jewish English people, and subsequently any mention of Muslim and Black English peope, something I think is unsupported.[68] [69] [70] [71] until an admin gets involved I was offended because I had previously thought of Epf as a friend,[72] even though we had disagreed in the past. For example he asked me for advice about archiving talk pages,[73] something he would not have done had there been any animosity between us. I felt let down by him, still do actually. Alun 09:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfC decides that my behaviour has been unacceptable and decides to block or ban me, then I'll accept that decision in good faith. I'm not here to defend myself, I was asked by another user to leave evidence here, otherwise I would not have posted at all. Alun 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]