Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/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.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Jmabel

Jcoonrod has made an implied legal threat

Wikipedia:No legal threats seems quite clear that a contributor may not both threaten legal action and continue to participate in editing articles. It's one or the other.

In this edit Jcoonrod appears to state (I'm paraphrasing, you can check his words via the link) that to imply that The Hunger Project has ever used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger is libelous.

I think all parties (including Smeelgova) agree that Smeelgova added material to our article The Hunger Project citing sources that claim precisely that (with reference to the first few years of THP's existence). To the best of my knowledge, THP did not sue those sources for libel, although they did successfully sue in a UK court over allegations about similar practices continuing at a later date.

Consequently, it seems to me that there is an implied threat here of a libel suit against Smeelgova and/or Wikipedia. I would like to see that threat either explicitly stated or explicitly withdrawn. In the former case, this should mean under Wikipedia:No legal threats that Jcoonrod would cease to edit; in the latter case, I'm sure that would be a burden off of other editors, and quite possibly the Foundation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

At least one edit by Smeelgova was inappropriate

Without evaluating the extensive [2] in general, the addition of "The Hunger Project staff also spends time regularly editing Wikipedia" to the article itself strikes me as inappropriate. Smeelgova has agreed (via email, so no evidence to present) that these words are inappropriate in the article, and says that it happened as part of what was effectively a revert, and that the words were originally someone else's. I would hope that we can all simply agree that remarks like that don't belong in an article, and assume good faith that this was basically accidental. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

At least two citable sources appear to say THP aided est

At least two sources that would normally be considered citable appear to say THP in its early years recruited for est.

One of these (which I read at the time) is Suzanne Gordon, "Let Them Eat est, We Confront Werner Erhard With Our Awareness Of His Manifestation Of What We're Clear Is A Big Scam", Mother Jones, December 1978. The current article claims it was "Retracted 1984". If I remember correctly, the 1984 statement by MJ (which unfortunately is not cited, so I have no easy way to find it) merely said that they did not believe these practices to be ongoing, not that the 1978 article was false at the time. But I'm working from memory after more than two decades: it would help if someone could produce the "retraction", and if it really is a retraction, I will, of course, gladly defer to that.

The other source is Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, 1983, Center for Investigative Reporting and Addison-Wesley. I will readily admit that I do not have a copy of this. An apparently relevant passage is quoted in the article The Hunger Project. If somehow context shows it to mean other than what it appears to, I'd like to see that context.

I would hope that we can all agree that both Mother Jones and a book published by Addison-Wesley would normally be considered citable. Therefore, I would hope that all will consider, at the very least, that Smeelgova is likely to have cited them in complete good faith even if it turns out that these were later retracted. I would certainly not have hesitated to cite such sources myself. In fact, I believe I am the one who first mentioned the MJ article in this context, though it's lost somewhere in an email or a talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• With reference to Jcoonrod describing (below) the MJ article as "inaccessible": the full run of Mother Jones to date should be readily available (either in paper, fiche, or some other form) in any major public or university library in the United States, and probably quite a few beyond. Contributors often use as sources works far less available than that (e.g. I've used Romanian-language works not available in English translation, where there are probably no more than a handful of copies in the English-speaking world; I've used books that have been out of print for decades; etc.). Copyright prevents posting a copy online, but if Jcoonrod or any other contributor is genuinely unable to obtain a copy, I am virtually certain I will be able to obtain one either from the Seattle Public Library or that of the University of Washington, and will gladly mail a photocopy. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Pedant17

Jcoonrod has silently deleted valid material

JCoonrod has deleted material which some might interpret as associating the Hunger Project with undesirable connotations - such as refererences to Werner Erhard and/or to Erhard Seminars Training. He has done this since some of his very early edits of the article: see edit of 14 April 2004 and edit of 27 April 2004. In the two cited cases, no talk-page discussion or annotation adressed the issues involved. Jcoonrod has subsequently acknowledged the validity of mentioning such material (at least in passing -- see his proposed compromise article; however I adduce this evidence as suggesting an an original and sustained tendency or attitude, one contrary to the inclusionism and incremental-improvement goals of Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 03:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod assumes other editors and sources act in bad faith

Use by Jcoonrod of emotional terminology such as "false and libellous", "intrinsically biased", "unreliable sources" and "attack" [3] appears unhelpful. I have seen little substantiation of such claims, yet the Wikipedia Talk pages and open-ended article pages provide the facility to do just that. The court case against the Sunday Times furnishes only one relatively clear-cut Hunger Project victory (in a specific case in a single jurisdiction) in a long series of legal threats and veiled aspersions. But Jcoonrod appears to prefer repetition of simple claims to detailed discussion of events. Neither the refutations of the Hunger Project's critics nor precise references to alleged retractions appear (any more: though some rebuttal once featured before JCoonrod removed it [4]) in the Hunger Project article -- as if any hint of doubt needs expunging, and as if an est-ian appeal to the vagaries of "integrity" serves us better.

The ad hominem approach extends to Jcoonrod's characterisation of valid and respected sources such as Steven Pressman, a pioneering journalist (whose book Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile New York: St Martins Press, 1993) Jcoonrod describes as "an out-of-print book about Werner Erhard") and Rick Ross (sufficiently notable to have his own entry in Wikipedia as early as May 2004), whose well-sourced and variously-opinioned archives get characterised (without evidence) as a "shrill POV site".

For more on Rick Ross's archives, see the Evidence talk page. -- Pedant17 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod also smears multiple websites as "anti-cult activist". His vision of a staid, static and reverent web ("We request the arbitrators to establish and freeze accurate and non-defamatory entries on The Hunger Project and Joan Holmes and remove the history and discussion sections and any pages of non-notable individuals" [5]) does not gel well with Wikipedia, which encourages and depends on participatory editing and good faith.

Perhaps Jcoonrod has evidence for his apparent conspiracy-theory which suggests an endlessly recycled association of the Hunger Project with "Werner Erhard", regardless of all other criticisms of the nature, operations and functioning of that organisation. If so, let's see that evidence made public. -- Pedant17 03:52 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jcoonrod

Smeelgova et al are using Wikipedia as a forum for false and libelous statements

The most important fact we would like to put in evidence is our integrity. THP is, and always has been, an independent reputable charity and has never used its personnel or resources on anything other than ending hunger. We have independent audits every year of our existence that prove this. We get the highest or second-highest ratings by all the charity watchdog groups. To suggest that we use our resources improperly is serious and does material harm to our organization, particularly in a medium that potential donors will see as they do due-diligence.

Describing this campaign as libelous is not a legal threat, it is a simple statement of fact. Wikipedia policy prohibits libel, slander and defamation of character.[[6]]

People of enormous integrity like Queen Noor, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and Dr. M.S. Swaminathan have chosen to be associated with THP for many years because we do what we say we do. Today, more than 22 million impoverished people have better lives because of our work.

We certainly have never promoted a for-profit, self-help program like est.

Because one of our founders was Werner Erhard, the founder of est, and because (from 1977-1990) he encouraged participants in his program to support us (a support that was strictly one-way), detractors of Mr. Erhard sometimes attacked THP, and sometimes generated media stories alleging impropriety with lines like - "thinly veiled recruiting arm for a mind-bending cult." Generally - when presented with the facts - publishers issued corrections, retractions or apologies. The only "mainstream" newspaper to ever carry such an article was the Sunday Times of London in 1986, and we sued and won damages[[7]].

Lately, a number of individuals have resurrected these early attacks, leveraging the power of Wikipedia to promote their POV. User:Smeelgova, claiming to have no POV, yet working daily - sometimes round-the-clock - researching and listing every incident in the past where people expressed a negative POV, and calling this balanced. As her history of contributions shows, her work has focused almost exclusively on Werner Erhard and anyone connected to him.

We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but she insisted that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance."

In attempting mediation, I endeavored to work with Smeelgova to establish a truce format and an agreement not to revert over edits during mediation. She, however, cast such direct discussion as an attack[[8]].

As the page filled up with every long-ago incident of someone repeating an anti-THP POV, it crossed the line with direct attributions by Smeelgova of wrongdoing, based on a reference in a 23-year-old book I had never heard of. In seeking Office action against a clear libel, Wikipedia's legal counsel had the following exchange with Smeelgova on the User_talk:Danny page[[9]].

We request the arbitrators to establish and freeze accurate and non-defamatory entries on The Hunger Project and Joan Holmes and remove the history and discussion sections and any pages of non-notable individuals. We provide a sample for the arbitrators to consider at User:Jcoonrod/sandbox.

The nature of Rick Ross's attacks on THP

In response to the comment above about the validity of Rick Ross as a source, please see this example of his writings for a sense of his standards for writing about living people - [[10]] - which clearly differ from Wikipedia standards.

The "Timeline" format of criticism is intrinsically biased

There are hundreds and hundreds of news stories about The Hunger Project available on the web. For example, here is a page of links to some of the articles from the major English daily in Bangladesh [[11]] and here are some from a major English daily in India.[[12]] These even have the advantage of not merely re-hashing the same 1978 attack piece. Clearly, including all the news stories would be more "balanced" but I don't think it would create a good Wikipedia piece.

Smeelgova creates numerous pages of non-notable individual to buttress her POV

The history of Smeelgova's contributions show a pattern of creating pages on living individuals to make the case that there is an improper relationship between The Hunger Project and the former est organization. She created a page for our former chairman Ellis Duell [[13]], a broken Wiki link to our current board member George Weiss.

I don't even think our president, Joan Holmes, meets the notable criteria, and the page created by Smeelgova on Joan Holmes (See [[14]]) is particularly blatant as an excuse to repeat attacks on THP.

She also creates page for non-notable supporters of her POV, such as Steven Pressman[[15]], author of an out-of-print book about Werner Erhard which includes a reference to THP, and Carol Giambalvo[[16]].

Smeelgova violates NOR

This utilization of Wikipedia as a definitive repository of expressions of negative POV on THP is, itself, constitutes original research. In addition, she has inserted (and currently removed) completely false interpretations of our finances, asserting that there is controversy on our overhead rates where there is none. See [[17]].

Descendall et al have attacked me personally

Sometimes, like User:Descendall and User:Enkido, the attacks on THP were coupled with insults to me personally:

You are the chief operating officer of The Hunger Project. I suppose that you see it as your place to patrol the Internet to try desperately to hide THP's ugly past. Admittedly, I know nothing about THP's ugly present, but from such an ugly seed no flower is likely to grow. You can find another job, Jcoonrod. It may pay less, but you'll feel less soiled. --Enkido 06:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, when your politics seem to be in decline and your marriage falls apart, you sort of start to drift in life. You can always join a "community," so to speak, and go down to Guyana or found a group that sits around and visualizes hunger. Just don't call it a cult. --Descendall 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[18]

Smeelgova is supporting her POV with unreliable sources

There are five types of unreliable sources being inserted by Smeelgova.

First, treating shrill POV sites such as RickRoss.com as if they are history, eg

For a summary,The Hunger Project: A Historical Background, A News Summary, Rick Ross, [[19]]

Second, using brief (but non-informative) web mentions of inaccessible stories as an apparent excuse to include a blatant POV headline implying fraud, eg, the journal reference to Mother Jones.

Third, using illegally posted full copies of copyrighted materials, reprinted by anti-cult websites without permission but waving the flag of a false interpretation of Fair Use, eg the two articles by David Hoekema posted on the ex-cult.org website.

Fourth, referencing unverifiable or nonexistant sources, eg: the Garvey, Seed, McGill Daily and Fifth Estate pieces and my personal correspondence.

Fifth, asserting the POV that defending one's reputation is a bad thing, eg Austin Cline.

Evidence presented by User:Smeelgova

Apology/Admission of Reproduced edit

I wish to reiterate assertions made by User:Jmabel above which explain the reproduced edit, which was initially created by a different user/editor here: [20]. The group also regularly edits Wikipedia in an effort to delete negitive viewpoints about The Hunger Project. I acknowledge that though this statement may or may not be factual in nature, it was inappropriate for me to reproduce it from a different user's edit, because the original edit included information not necessary on Wikipedia.Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross summary

The origins, history and controversy of the organization is relevant to the article. The assertion made above by User:Jcoonrod RE: Rick Ross' website is POV. The fact of the matter is, he relied on other media sources to create his history of controversy article. However, the article currently reads :

For a summary,The Hunger Project: A Historical Background, A News Summary<ref>''The Hunger Project: A Historical Background, A News Summary'', April 8, 2004, [[Rick Ross]], http://www.rickross.com/reference/hunger_project/hunger_project1.html</ref>, April 8, 2004. Rick Ross has compiled these reports from public media sources.

This indicates to the reader the nature of the creation of the referred report.Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourced Material

I have maintained the practice of utilizing reputable sources, cited in blockquote citation format, and will continue to do so.

Mother Jones

• December 1, 1978 - Suzanne Gordon, Let Them Eat est, We Confront Werner Erhard With Our Awareness Of His Manifestation Of What We're Clear Is A Big Scam, Mother Jones. Mother Jones

This source is pertinent to the history of the organization, for it explains a great deal related to the organization's relation to its original founders, as well as explaining the initial financial structure.

Center for Investigative Reporting

• Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, 1983, Center for Investigative Reporting and Addison-Wesley.

In this source, the authors utilize the original piece by Mother Jones in order to analyze an exemplary example of investigative journalism. The quotes in question which were cited in blockquote citation format are not from the reproduced Mother Jones article (above citation), but rather from commentary and interviews with the article's authors RE: their investigative reporting methodology.

Outrageous Betrayal

• Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile. New York: St Martins Press, 1993. ISBN 0312092962.

This work authored by legal journalist Steven Pressman was published by St. Martin's Press. From the wikipedia article,

[21]

St. Martin's Press is one of the United States' largest publishers, bringing to the public some 700 titles a year under eight imprints...

Whether or not I have a certain POV is not relevant to this particular discussion. Obviously User:Jcoonrod as well as all users involved in this arbitration have their own POV. However, I have attempted to only edit utilizing the blockquote citation format in order to cite/quote reputable sources, so as to present sourced information instead of my own commentary.Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation of other pages

The creation of other pages is not relevant to this direct discussion of The Hunger Project article, and their notability or non-notability can be discussed on respective talk pages. However, I have again strived to utilize sourced information in blockquoted citation format on said created pages, in order to show the reader the sources of presented information. These sources are then cited in the references subsection on those pages.Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod has made an implied legal threat

I second User:Jmabel's assertion above, regarding the

implied threat here of a libel suit against Smeelgova and/or Wikipedia. I would like to see that threat either explicitly stated or explicitly withdrawn. In the former case, this should mean under Wikipedia:No legal threats that Jcoonrod would cease to edit; in the latter case, I'm sure that would be a burden off of other editors, and quite possibly the Foundation.

I would also like to see the threat explicitly stated or explicitly withdrawn.Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod has been reverting consistently since 2004

I second User:Pedant17's assertion above, regarding User:Jcoonrod's frequent reverts and deletions which began before I had ever edited The Hunger Project article. There is also [22] and [23] and [24] and [25].Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod has consistently deleted information from the talk page

User:Jcoonrod has deleted information from the talk page of The Hunger Project, as well as the talk page of individual users, which has provoked further discussion from involved editors (myself not included). See [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and [30].Smeelgova 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Wisden17 remarks

marking edits as minor

I will posit that reversions should not be marked as minor. I have in fact apologized previously to this act, and have ceased marking any edits as minor, and explain further edits in the edit summary section. However, as stated above in previous evidence sections by User:Pedant17 and myself, User:Jcoonrod has participated in inappropriate actions regarding edits, as well as commentary in the edit summary section. Here [31], here, [32] and also notably here [33], where discussion should have been reserved for talk page.Smeelgova 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR and IP address

Yes, this was most likely my IP address used to make said referenced edits. However, I was unaware of the 3RR rule, and would certainly NOT have utilized those accused tactics to manipulate the policy. The truth is that I had most likely forgotten to sign in before making the edits, and so they were not marked under my username User:Smeelgova. However, it is notable that both myself and User:Jcoonrod have then probably violated the 3RR rule throughout this entire process, which can be seen through perusal of the article's history. As mentioned above, User:Jcoonrod's reverts with and without any explanation began more than 2 years before I began to edit the article.Smeelgova 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

My use of edit summaries has generally been to reiterate the fact that I strive to provide a factual basis for my input, from cited sources in referenced blockquote format. The particular edit in question [34] utilized the following commentary:

article indeed DOES cite references and sources, information on Werner Erhard/est relationships is relevant, facutal, and accurate.

It is true that I was not aware of User:Danny's role in this edit, and later reverted back to his version of the article, as shown here [35], as a sign that I in fact did wish to assume good faith, and that I wished to proceed with the mediation process. However, as to the edit commentary itself, it is simply again pointing to the fact that I cited numerous reputable sources throughout my contributions to the article. Smeelgova 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wisden17

I am invovled in this case in my role as a member of AMA. I have been advising Jcoonrod on this case, and whilst doing so have noticed several policy, and more general, based issues relating to Smeelgova's activity on Wikipedia, which I have detailed below.

Smeelgova incorrectly marks her edits as minor

To quote from Help edits should be marked as minor for 5 clear and distinct reasons. Looking at the history page of the Hunger Project article you can see that the vast majority of Smeelgova's edits have been marked as minor, whilst the majoirty of her edits do not meet the criteria of those laid out on the Help page. The most notable reason for her edits not meeting those conditions laid out on the Help page is her marking of reversions as minor edits. This reversions have clearly not be uncontroversila (leading to a RfM, and RfAr) and so this does show that such reversions have not be uncontroversial.

Smeelgova has used her IP address to avoid 3RR

Smeelgova has edited from her IP address in order to a 3RR block. If you take a look at this edit you can see strong evidence that this is the IP address of Smeelgova. The 3RR edit in questions is this, which was a breach of 3RR, but since Smeelgova had already done two reverts in the space of 6 hours, she used her IP address in order to stop any 3RR implications.

Smeelgova's use of edit summaries

Smeelgova's use of edit summaries, especially on the Hunger Project page have again been inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and also with previous precedents of this Committee. One edit in particular I would draw the arbitrators attention to is this, which shows Smeelgova's reversion of edits made by [[User:Danny|Danny]. In her reversion, note also how it is marked as minor, she provides what could be considered an incivil edit summary, and also she fails to AGF of Danny's actions, which bearing in mind his postion on Wikipedia seems worth noting.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.