Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:59, 16 November 2005

[[:|WP:RFAR
WP:Arb
WP:ArbReq]]

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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

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

Fred Bauder

Involved parties

Ted Wilkes ("party 1")
Fred Bauder ("party 2")

Summary

Fred Bauder said on his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements:
"I am one of the original arbitrators appointed by Jimbo and have participated in most of the cases that have been decided." At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Fred Bauder it was noted by User: Snowspinner and acknowledged by Fred Bauder that he "write the lion's share of the proposals for the arbcom at present." Further, Fred Bauder is active on other parts of the Internet and at this website], he asserted: "I am a regular editor on Wikipedia and kind of part of its establishment."

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:

When Jimmy Wales asked if you would be interested in serving on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee did you advise him that you were under disbarment by the Colorado Supreme Court?

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 notice, User:Onefortyone began discussions with Fred Bauder on his talk page, complaining about Ted Wilkes reverting his edits and falsely accused Wilkes of making personal attacks against him and others. Following these discussions, Fred Bauder interfered with the process and acted as an advocate on behalf of User:Onefortyone/Anon 80.141, accusing Wilkes here 16:17, 8 November 2005 of going too far and then makes the unfounded and unresearched declaration on behalf of User:Onefortyone that " the link to the Crime Magazine article was good." This was then followed up here on 14:09, 12 November 2005 with Mr. Bauder abusing his position as a member of the Arbitration Committee and declares: "I think his complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case." Fred Bauder also issued this same threat here to User:Wyss who had also reverted some of Onefortyone's improper edits.

In response to the actions and threat to me from Fred Bauder I advised him here on 15:14, November 12, 2005 that:

"I think it important to point out that your rendering of an opinion of a central issue under Arbitration and giving advice here to User:Onefortyone during the previous Arbitration Committee hearing was a highly questionable action that breached the Arbitration process and usurped the authority of the remaining Committee members. Continuing in the same vein of giving advice now places you in a conflict of interest that I think violates the neutrality that is fundamental to the credibility of the Arbitration Committee. With all due respect, I believe the message you left on my Talk page and at User Talk:Wyss that came to the conclusion, based on an "impression," that "If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case" is improper and could well be adjudged as intimidation. "

Fred Bauder responded here, on 15:21, 12 November 2005:

"Referring someone to Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates looks good on paper. I recognize the problems which exist with reference to my advising Onefortyone, however he is a Wikipedia editor in good standing and is entitled to have the decision respected. Under the circumstances it is quite proper for him to complain to an arbitrator. " Fred Bauder 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder's derision of members of Wikipedia's Association of Advocates is unacceptable and his admission that he knows there is a problem with an Arbitration Committee member advising defendant Onefortyone is intolerable. As such, I advised him as follows on 15:41, November 12, 2005 :

"In response to your reply on my Talk page to the above, I would have to say that given the seriousness of the issue with respect to the absolute integrity of the Arbitration process and that you admit to the problems which exist by advising Onefortyone, in any further process involving the same issues with me or anyone else versus User:Onefortyone I would be making a formal request that you recuse yourself. Thank you. " - Ted Wilkes 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The response by Fred Bauder to this on Revision as of 15:47, 12 November 2005 was a further obfuscation and distortion, done deliberately by someone trained in the law. It states:

"Codes of judicial conduct prohibit ex parte communications with litigants. Communications here, in the open, on talk pages, are not ex parte communications as they are open to everyone's view, including yours."

I replied as follows here on 15:55, November 12, 2005 with this:

"The issue is that a member of the Arbitration Committee should not be rendering a judgment on his own advice. That fundamental is inviolable. Thank you." - Ted Wilkes 15:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bauder has stated that he favors openness, but following these exchanges he in fact practiced the opposite. Behind the scenes, Mr. Bauder orchestrated the creation of the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee and without asking, instructed three people to monitor Onefortyone as seen Revision as of 04:43, November 13, 2005 that:

"we didn't ask for 141 to be assigned us- we assigned ourselves Jarlaxle and Marmot, but we were busy organizing things. It was Fred Bauer (a member of ArbCom, I believe) who told us to monitor 141 mere hours after the page first went up. I think this unilateral, unsought action of his justifies my description."

Again behind the scenes, the third person Fred Bauder told to monitor Onefortyone was User:FCYTravis who instead of monitoring, took up the defense of Onefortyone and began reinserting the edits of Onefortyone as he deemed them to be appropriate while following the directions here of Fred Bauder.

A committee of Fred Bauder's legal peers and the Supreme Court of Colorado declared that he is not fit to practice law. He deliberately misled Wikipedians into believing that he simply retired from the practice of law when in fact he is forbidden to do so. Someone who has been publicly condemned by the Supreme Court grievance committee for countenancing women to engage in prostitution work is abhorrent and frightening to women. When that same person is given the powerful position as a member of the Arbitration Committee and then leaves an intimidating message on a female contributor's talk page, is dangerous and unacceptable for an organization such as Wikipedia. No Wikipedian should be placed in a position where their conduct is judged by Fred Bauder and his history and actions severely tarnishes Wikipedia's reputation.

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.

That said, my personal situation does give me time to do work for Wikipedia, a very worthwhile project. All in all, I think it worked out well enough. Fred Bauder 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Reject. This isn't even close to a matter for the arbcom to handle. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. As per Mindspillage, addressing this is not within the Arbitration Committee's mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as outside our mandate. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, Appeal of an arbitration case is to User:Jimmy Wales Fred Bauder 21:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tmayes1999

Involved parties

Tmayes1999

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:

Talk:A-bomb - [1]
Talk:Nuclear weapon - [2]
User talk:Tmayes1999 - [3]
User talk:Fastfission - [4]
User talk:DV8 2XL - [5]
As I'm the one filing the RFArb, I can be assumed to be aware of it without a note on my user page.

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:

User talk:Tmayes1999

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]

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)

DV8 2XL 05:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

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]

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

Nobs01 - User_talk:Nobs01#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

Rangerdude - User_talk:Rangerdude#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

Cognition - User_talk:Cognition#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

Herschelkrustofsky - User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

Sam_Spade - User_talk:Sam_Spade#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

Cberlet - User_talk:Cberlet#Arbitration

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 [6] --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 [7] []and Chip Berlet [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]-follow links after "user in question" who is Cberlet.

Nobs01 proclaims that after his superior edits I "crapped my pants" [13].

Cognition uploads distorted image to entry on Chip Berlet [14] after inserting POV into Chip Berlet [15]

After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [16] [17].--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." [18].

After editorial content disputes with Sam_Spade [19] and Sam_Spade telling me "I suggest you chill the fuck out" I seek mediation [20] Sam_Spade visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [21] --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After editorial content disputes with me, Rangerdude visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [22]--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.[23] 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"[24]. 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.[25] 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."[26]

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[27] and a neutral admin removed protection.[28]

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 [29] [30] and the other two urged editors whose tempers were flaring up to assume good faith [31] [32]. 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.[33]

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]

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
- [34]

Cberlet expresses his POV on his articles talk page
- [35]

Opinionated edits regarding his employer, Political Research Associates
- [36], [37], [38]

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 [39] 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 [40] (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. [41]) 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'," [42] "The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary," [43] and "Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented." [44] 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.

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 repeatedly bite 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]

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]

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

Accept ➥the Epopt 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Based on Nobs01's edits to Talk:Chip Berlet[reply]
Accept Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown, JPLogan, others

Article: Neuro-linguistic programming (Talk)

Involved parties

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

HeadleyDown (talk | contribs)
JPLogan (talk | contribs)
DaveRight (talk | contribs), also apparently edited as D.Right (talk | contribs)
Bookmain (talk | contribs)

Additional suspected sock-puppets:

(Not all of these accounts are causing problems to an equal degree as others, partially since some have been here longer than others. Roughly the above list is in order from most actual damage to date, to least. It is not known which of the above are bona-fide editors and which are just less active sock-puppets or cronies, since although not all have been disruptive, each of the above has engaged in at least some of the common styles of behavior described)

Brief summary of case

The neuro-linguistic programming ("NLP") article has been damaged by aggressive POV warrioring, vandalism, and flagrant ongoing breach of Wikipedia policies from multiple accounts over the last 3 months, including multiple breach of 3RR, POV aggression on other pages related to NLP, reams of rants on the talk page, attribution of false credentials to sources, deletion of the ArbCom vote motion, deletion of other users comments, and regular avoidance of courteous talk page requests in favor of deletion and further POV-addition.

There is strong suspicion that most of the users involved in this are sock-puppets or cronies. All eight of them seem (from their contributions list) to have arrived on Wikipedia in the same limited period, immediately homed in on the same NLP article, write with similar style wording and agenda, edit at a similar time of day, and none (with a minor exception) has worked on any article except NLP and its related articles to any significant degree since. This was underlined today by the near-simultaneous arrival yesterday following discussion of research and usage, of not one but two previously unknown Wikipedia users AMaulden and JaseC, in an identical manner, who immediately began the likewise identical behavior in likewise almost identical style.

Despite being warned several times that referral to ArbCom would be needed, requests to desist by multiple users, and mediation, this has continued and got worse. A vote [45] by other editors including example DIFFs was held, and received a 7-0 vote in support of a view that mediation was fruitless and to seek arbitration.

The matter is slightly complicated because we are not completely sure which of the named users, or indeed other editors on the article and talk page, are sock puppets or cronies. We think most if not all of the named ones are. We don't wish to lose information held by genuine editors (if any) or exclude genuine views (however extreme), however HeadleyDown at least is a confirmed vandal, almost certain sock-puppeteer, and POV warrior, and appears incapable of handling even sourced cited research that contradicts his views, and several/most of the named users are almost equally problematic and likely sock puppets for him or others.

So what we would like to ask is that:

HeadleyDown, possibly JPLogan, plus the other named users (including newly arriving sock puppets or similar) who appear not to be making a bona-fide positive contribution to the article and fail to act in accordance with wiki policies and standards, to be permanently prevented from editing on the subject of NLP or its articles, and
If any of the other named users are bona fide editors who have acted disruptively, that they are limited to an appropriately sized and WP policy-compliant criticism section on NLP-related articles, with a one-revert limit (and permission for a short term ban and ArbCom re-referral as deterrents if repeated).

Our aim in asking this is to strike a balance: we don't wish to lose valuable input from other genuine views, or the positive contribution of genuine editors in the above list (if any), but also neither do we want the articles degraded by disruptive ones.

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 DIFF, JPLogan DIFF, DaveRight DIFF, D.Right DIFF, Bookmain DIFF, AliceDeGrey DIFF, AMaulden DIFF, JaseC DIFF, HansAntel DIFF

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, and 5 weeks of mediation. The degree of POV warring has been extreme. I asked for mediation a second time specifically with HedleyDown (Oct 30) and specifically to discuss and gain mutual agreement about NPOV and how it applies to this article. However his actions in the few days following made it highly unlikely this would be fruitful. 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. This is because the core issues are not about individual section edits, but about virulent POV aggression and policy breach which is not being addressed, has not been addressed in the several weeks since a mediator was appointed, continues unchanged and unabated, shows no sign of change, and is causing significant friction and deterrence to otherwise neutral editors who are becoming unwilling to edit the article against such hostility and name-calling.

The users concerned have been told in polite terms, direct terms, directed to wikipedia policy, and had wikipedia policy summarized for them by multiple users, despite lack of civility, who have usually been dismissed or had personal remarks for doing so. In the meantime they continue between them to engage in aggressive POV warring on the talk page, the article and elsewhere, inappropriate editing, deletion of cited sourced material, and personal attacks/remarks.

Multiple warnings that an ArbCom referral vote would be held were given, with repeated requests by multiple users to cease policy breaches and other actions so as not to have to take that step.

Subsequent to the article's ArbCom vote, HeadleyDown increased his breaches of wiki policy, including deletion of the Arbcom vote and users posts, in the last 24 hours two new users (AMaulden and JaseC) - most likely sock puppets - have been added to the article, and users posts have been deleted.

Although mediation technically has not ended, it has been 3 months since this all started, 10 days since the above vote on the talk page, and 5 weeks since mediation began, and nothing's changed of any significance. It's still (to cite FuelWagon) "some of the most biased editing I've read... If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopedia to edit." [46], and the suspected sock-puppets etc keep coming.

Statement by FT2 (on behalf of complainants)

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
Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, often followed by addition of more POV material.
Personal attacks
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 attack (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 deletion of personal view [highly slanted] added to article by editor)

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. [47]
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.

Votes for referral (with support for statement that mediation is unlikely to be fruitful)

FT2
Comaze
Lee1
FuelWagon
GregA (originally posted as User:203.217.56.137)
User:PatrickMerlevede
User:Justin Anderson (also posting as 211.27.105.9)

In addition one other user has indicated strong support but not voted due to short time of editing:

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." [48] and [49]

Users voting against arbitration

None, other than comments by the users concerned.

Mediator's comments

Following the Arbcom vote, the mediator commented that he felt it was neither efficient nor necessary. [50]
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...." [51]

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. [52]
HeadleyDown deleted two of Justin Anderson's comments from the Talk page. [53]
The 3RR has also been broken on at least two 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" [54]
Talk page posts explaining and discussing edits, with the intent of promoting mutual collaboration, continue to be bluntly ignored. (eg: [55])
The definitions of the subject, cited from its founders' websites and standard texts, was deleted complete with citations, by JPLogan. [56]
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.

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]

FT2 updates & responses to user statements

I agree with one aspect of Voice of All's statement, an initial IP check on all editors concerned would be helpful. 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 users 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.
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): [57] 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); [58] 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"; [59] HeadleyDown removes a key qualifier in parentheses regarding the British Psychological Society leaving impression that Parkers view represents them accurately; [60] HeadleyDown rewords an already unbalanced paragraph which had been compromised, with even more generalized wording that removes the "X said Y" qualifier; [61] and again more selective POV insertion by DaveRight; [62] 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); [63] Bookmain deletes a paragraph that states NLP rests on an observational rather than theoretical basis; [64] ... which is re-deleted by AliceDeGrey when corrected; [65] 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]
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."
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).
However this is not the case nor 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. 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."
Although no other editor had worked on it [66] 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 [67]. I made appropriate (and unbiased) mentions, in one appropriate criticism section, and the article did not try to make any excessive claims to "truth", but instead describes and characterizes the principles rather than advocate a side.

Although he doesn't mention it, Bookmain has a prior history on the article of plucking invented "facts" and straw men out of the blue. Perhaps the most obvious of these has been his characterization of 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)
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) please present a few DIFF examples. It's very noticeable that this case as I have presented is full of numerous visible cited examples. By contrast, Alice's words, and those of HeadleyDown Bookmain DaveRight and JPLogan, are conspicuously lacking almost any examples of what they allege. As a side note, I notice that a list of 84 citations with links, of NLP used by credible organizations, has been provided. AliceDeGrey has not yet moved even a finger to discuss or acknowledge it, or to adjust the article to represent it fairly. It seems that there is a double standard for "facts" going on, and AliceDeGrey is part of the center of it.

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, [68], [69] removing details of how NLP is used by cults making it seem NLP is a cult, [70] removal of critical 1st half of quote, [71] preface the intro definition with the sentence "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method proposed for programming the mind", [72] adds "and remote ESP influence" to a list of NLP uses, [73] adds "and dubious (Morgan 1993)" knowing that Morgan was an opinion writer yet referencing him as if he were a scientist [74], rvt/reinstates this adding untruthfully that this opinion of Morgan's is "A more recent scientific assessment" [75], then when corrected rvt/reinstates again this time adding a further misleading characterization as a "published follow up scientific assessment (Morgan 1993)" [76], 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" [77], removes the observation on the contradictory nature of criticisms leveled at NLP [78], reinstates the "NLP is a method of programming the mind" deleted earlier [79], removes the skeptics dictionary reference deliberately leaving Carroll (2003) looking like a research academic [80], .....
Re DaveRight: [reply in progress, later today, brief reply for now] 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. 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)" [81]

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 [82] and [83] 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 [84] and [85] and [86] and [87] and [88] and [89] for examples of article edits that were explained, or citations offered, on the talk page. Edits were explained on the talk page: [90] [91] "Any criticisms please bring here... as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section" [04:59, 30 October 2005] [12:41, 30 October 2005] [07:55, 1 November 2005] and a request to name "...one non-trivial example of a statement I added, that you feel is not supported factually and inaccurate." [92] 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" [05:37, 30 October 2005]

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]

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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)

(update) Since AliceDeGrey states that I am advocating for cited facts to be deleted, I just want to point out something. The people who keep talking about "facts" want the article to say "NLP is pseudoscience", but since that "fact" is actually disputed by NLP sources, NPOV policy requires that the article instead say somethign like "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". The problem then becomes that certain editors see this as "removing" their facts.

HeadleyDown: NLP promoters remove lots of cited fact

DaveRight: The NLP promotional team are dead set on removing facts

AliceDeGrey: We do not delete scientific facts or advocate for its deletion as is happening on the discussion page now.

Bookmain: The pressure directed by them in order to bannish such scientific facts is enormous.

I have done nothing but convert disputed statements of fact such as "NLP is pseudoscience" into sourced assertions that are not disputed such as "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience".

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. [93]. 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 [94]), or "Well I will present his damning words on the article. I think that is what you are asking for." [95] [96].

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 [97] 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 party (name 6)

Statement by party (name 7)

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

Accept cautiously, to judge behavior and not content ➥the Epopt 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnski et al.

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

Involved parties

Complainants:

Against:

User:Johnski,
User:KAJ suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:SamuelSpade banned sockpuppet of Johnski (block log:[98]),
User:Wiki-Facts suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
Rriter suspected sockpuppet of Johnski (see evidence)
User:207.47.122.10 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:202.162.66.158 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:12.202.45.74 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:67.124.49.20 suspectedd sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:63.164.145.198 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:71.130.204.74 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:66.245.247.37 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:208.57.91.27 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski,
User:68.123.207.17 suspected sockpuppet of Johnski.

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 [99], User:Gene Poole [100], User:Jdavidb [101], User:Calton [102], User:shocktm [103], User:El C [104], User:Dejvid [105], User:Samboy [106]

Defendants:User:Johnski [107], User:KAJ [108], User:SamuelSpade [109] (Note: This user has been blocked as a sock puppet), User:Wiki-Facts [110], User:Rriter [111].

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. [112] 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. [113]

Allegation #2: Reverting Dominion of Melchizedek, Bokak Atoll and other articles without consensus. [114]

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.” [115] 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. [116]

Allegation #4: Misquoting sources to push POV edits. [117] Misquoting Washington Post Article, Johnski claimed it said “dubious” when the article claimed DOM was in fact a “ruse.” [118] 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. [119] 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: [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127].

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]

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 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 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]

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]

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

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) →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]

TDC and 165.247.200.100

Confirmations

Awareness

I have placed a notification on TDC talk page and
anon's 165.247.200.100 page. Anon confirmed request on my (travb) talk page
User:Tony Sidaway just woke up, and is slightly disoriented but aware. I was informed as a neutral party a couple of days ago [128]. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other steps

Mediation request leading to latest page protection by Sasquatch
14 months of talking on the winter soldier talk page
Comments at travb talk page
Comments at TDC talk page
A RFC was iniated by TDC today, in which TDC invited all of his friends and allies to chime in [129][130][131], but based on the history of this page, this will simply not work.

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[132], 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 [133], 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]

"Pro" winter soldier: User:Travb (Myself), anon 209.86.1.4, Anon 165.247.200.100, User:Calton, User:Stevertigo
"Con" winter soldier (people who tend to side with TDC): User:Duk, User:Ed_Poor, User:SEWilco,
Neutral parties: User:Sasquatch, User:Tony_Sidaway

TDC: TDC has been booted 13 times for similar revert wars [134]. See also Requests for comment/TDC-2[135], Requests for comment/TDC[136]

He starts revert wars like the recent revert war on Winter Soldier Investigation on several pages, and was recently warned again by Tony Sidaway on 5 November 2005 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[137]

FIRST revert war: Because of a FIRST revert war[138] 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. TDC and Duk then attempted to get the complete article Winter Soldier Investigation (along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War at the same time[139] erased for a "copyright violation" for no more than a maximum of 6 isolated sentences[140] 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."[141].(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[142]. User:Sasquatch and User:Ed_Poor changed the few sentences. User:Sasquatch protected the article on request[143] of User:TDC and User:Tony_Sidaway unlocked it a few days later.

THIRD revert war: TDC began a new THIRD revert war[144], 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[145].

Anon: Anon is the other revert war participant. The opposite of 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[146]

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[147].

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[148].

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[149] 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:

anon have a [injunction] placed on him for editing Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
that as per the of Stevertigo TDC..."should be banned with a [temporary injunction] from editing any and all controversial topics related to U.S. military conflict." -- User:Travb

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 [150]. 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)

Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuaschroeder

Involved parties

User:Joshuaschroeder

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have placed a notification on Joshuaschroeder's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Extensive discussion on Talk:Redshift
Extensive discussion on Talk:Plasma_cosmology including an RfC: Requests for comment.
Extensive discussion on Talk:Electric_Universe_(concept), including two Votes for Deletion.

Statement by Iantresman (Talk)

I feel that contributions from User:Joshuaschroeder in the articles above, may contravene certain Wikipedia policies, such as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view, and indirect personal attacks. For example:

Despite surviving a Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model at 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC), Joshuaschroeder attempts to delete and redirect the page elsewhere, six hours later at 12:09, 20 July 2005 (History)
Having added information to the page on Redshift on "Causes" and "Neutrino redshift", (History) both with peer reviewed references, Joshuaschroeder removes them both and comments in Talk:Redshift in the section Variable particle mass theory, that "This article should not be a dumpster for any huckster's fanciful suggestions". The implication that peer-reviewed scientists are "huckster's" I consider a personal slur, and the dismissal of peer-reviewed referenced information to be point of view.
In the discussion on Talk:Plasma_cosmology, on 14:25, 1 November 2005, Joshuaschroeder writes that "Until you understand the basic difference between comparison and explanatory theory, there is no reason to continue this discussion.", which makes it difficult to discuss matters.
On the Plasma cosmology page on 12:20, 26 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder adds the Pseudoscience tag (History). As a science developed by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén and by other scientists shown at the bottom of the page, I consider the Pseudoscience tag to be quite insulting, and a personal attack.
I feel that further comments by Joshuaschroeder demean the article on Plasma Cosmology, see my comments "Deeply troubled with Joshuaschroeder" (8 Nov 2005) [Talk:Plasma_cosmology], and hence are not neutral points of view.
In Talk:Plasma_cosmology a contribution "Eric Lerner's criticism" (6 Nov) from plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner, also suggests that "Joshua Schroeder, has devoted a vast amount of time to vandalizing entries on plasma cosmology", which if true, is against Wikipedia policy.
In Talk:Redshift Joshuaschroeder has refused to allow certain types of redshift to be added to the page, claiming the article is about a specific kind of redshift. This is not a neutral point of view. The discussion on the "Wolf Effect" provides detail.
In Redshift, Joshuaschroeder adds a comment (15:31, 9 October 2005) about other kinds of redshift, suggesting that "These are frequency-dependent effects", when I have provide three peer-reviewed reference indicating that is not always the case, and I have mentioned in Talk:Redshift that I have had my facts checked by some of the authors. In this respect Joshuaschroeder is contradicting peer-reviewed scientists, and hence it is not a neutral point of view.
In Electric Universe history on 19:47, 13 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder comments that "there is no way that the Electric Universe corresponds to an interdisciplinary approach since most proponents are not in any discipline". Despite being over-general, he is implying that none of the proponents are educated in any discipline, or have belonged to an education establishment? Either way, this is a personal attack and against Wikipedia policy. It's also inaccurate. Despite the subject being based on astronomy, physics, history, rock art (which I consider being interdisciplinary), the History section in the Electric_Universe_(concept) article clearly specifies proponents' disciplines.

Statement by Joshuaschroeder (Talk)

User:Iantresman has not gone through the traditional channels of trying to resolve this dispute and instead has appealed directly to arbitration. I do not object to his desire to resolve the conflict, but I do think that this is a bit premature. I spend much of my time trying to work with editors on a number of these articles who are not overly familiar with science and consequently make fairly poor contributions to particular articles. User:Iantresman is one such editor who has a tendency to add material that is either poorly researched, poorly worded, or out-of-place. He doesn't like having his edits removed and I think this is the true basis for his RfA. Joshuaschroeder 12:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject for lack of a prior attempts to resolve this conflict through the dispute resolution process. No user conduct RfC, and I can't find the article RfC alleged to in the complaint. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as per Kelly ➥the Epopt 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben

Involved parties

Aggrieved party: Ben | talk
Party 1: Administrator FeloniousMonk | talk (main conduct complaint)
Party 2: Administrator RoyBoy | talk (secondary conduct complaint)
Party 3: Administrator Duncharris | talk (secondary conduct complaint)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

FeloniousMonk has been informed. [151]
RoyBoy has been informed. [152]
Duncharris has been informed. [153]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ben has spoken with administrators Ryan Delaney | talk [154] and SlimVirgin | talk [155] regarding the problem. Ben also filed an article RFC [156] regarding the content of the article which did not prove fruitful. FeloniousMonk has informed Ben that he will not participate in a Request for comment regarding his conduct. [157][158].

Addendum: Please compare this with FeloniousMonk's personal statement later in this RfArb: "I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration." Ben 11:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please also note that FeloniousMonk's RfC against Ben was filed 18 minutes after Ben initially filed this RfArb. --Ben 23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ben | talk

FeloniousMonk is an administrator who edits and participates in the discussion page of the article Intelligent Design|talk. The user is currently involved in a dispute with Ben regarding the knowledge structure of the topic and the characterization of the current article. Ben's comments were initially hostile towards the structure of the article, saying the article was "horrible." [159] While inappropriate, this opinion regarding the article is not unique to Ben [160]. FeloniousMonk's response was off-topic and dismissive of Ben's concerns. Ben then modified two sentences in the disambiguation paragraph to what he believed more accurately reflected the nature of the article and which was helpful. FeloniousMonk quickly reverted this change without explanation, violating revert policy Subsequently Ben has been explaining his views and position [161][162]. FeloniousMonk's responses are off-topic and dismissive and do not adequately address Ben's position in the slightest. The majority of his responses consist only of his opinion without explanation, for example simply stating a change is "inaccurate and POV" and generally acting contrary to assume good faith policy. Ben also believes FeloniousMonk is using his networks as administrator to further obstruct Ben's and other potential editors' contributions [163].

Ben's position regarding the article content is that as the topic is presented and defined, the article violates No personal essays policy.

Ben asserts FeloniousMonk is conciously and repeatedly obstructing Ben's and other editors' ability to contribute and as such is violating ownership of articles policy and assume good faith policy.

Many other users also have strong concerns about the article and about FeloniousMonk's conduct and violations of ownership policy. FeloniousMonk has even claimed that "new editors edit this article all the time," however in a week's period [164] the changes are not substantial though the article averages 15-20 edits/day and the discussion page 40-50 edits/day.

On November 5, 2005, FeloniousMonk used his administration privileges to block Ben[165] for inserting into the introduction, almost verbatim, FeloniousMonk's own assertion[166] regarding the factual accuracy of the introduction [167] [168].

RoyBoy is an administrator and has violated civility policy and troll policy by engaging with contributors on the Intelligent Design talk page whose comments served no purpose other than to insult the contributors to the article.[169] Both RoyBoy and FeloniousMonk used this as an opportunity to insult the user[170][171]. Later RoyBoy generally made offensive comments regarding creationists [172]. When confronted about his actions he said "LOL, yeah that's my favorite" in reference to what he called his "joke." Later he said "I'd concur its needless to improving the article, but that's not the end all be all of a discussion page. Of course if you had enough experience to be an admin; you'd stand a good chance of understanding that."[173]

Duncharris is an administrator and has violated civility policy by referring to Ben as "a lowly troll." [174] Duncharris was not involved in any way with the dispute on the Intelligent Design talk page and showed up solely to make this comment. Duncharris subsequently reverted without comment a contribution by Ben on the Coingate article[175]. The reversion was entirely unnecessary and inaccurate. Duncharris had previously not contributed to that page. Ben asserts this is a case of intimidation and harassment. Ben further believes that Duncharris' actions were a result of communication with RoyBoy or FeloniousMonk with an intent to harass. Ben also is concerned that an earlier case of vandalism on a similar page may be related [176].

Statement by FeloniousMonk | talk

I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration. Needless to say, there is a user conduct RFC I have filed on Benapgar's chronically disruptive behavior, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar, and my comments on the trouble Benapgar has been causing for the last two weeks of personal attacks and disruptive refusal to accept consensus can be found there. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoyBoy | talk

My first RfAr, I'm in the big leagues now. Ben has a habit of taking things out of context [177] [178] and attempting to read my mind [179] in order to prove something and/or silence/bully me by making baseless/opinionated allegations and then calling for my resignation. [180] On top of that he seems to think he can beat us over the head with WikiPolicy. [181] [182] Which makes me inclined to not like him; and I hope WikiPolicy has some sort of mechanism with which to send a message even Ben can't ignore; that Ben's not only in the wrong, but is going about it the wrong way. [183] In summation; repeated attempts to read my mind, motivations, actions indicates to me – that as of now – Ben is not suited for Wikipedia. <--- 131 words, not too shabby! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dunc | talk

Ben is a lowly troll, as can be seen by his trolling at talk:intelligent design and indeed this frivilous complaint. He is the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors to try to tell us that there are POV problems with the articles on evolution or intelligent design because they follow the policy at WP:NPOV#pseudoscience:

represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

A lot of work has gone into these articles to make them NPOV on a tricky subject. (Yet again) A newbie turns up and wants to completely rewrite it. Yet he does not understand the (admitedly quite complex) motivations and subtleties of ID, for example drifting into theology, and cannot provide a scientific theory of creationism.

Yet irritated that he's not got his way he's throwing his rattle out of his pram and complaining that there is a cabal. This RFA is simply another escalation in a childish harassment campaign. I can hardly believe that I am being forced to respond to this trolling, and anyone just needs to look at his RFC to see how unreasonable this chap is being.

I reverted his coingate since I believe he can't be trusted, though that whole article is a mess and he really couldn't've made it any worse! I have no interest or knowledge on that subject, and reverting him may have been an error on my part, but he's just nitpicking and his own record speaks for itself.

I really have found this little episode quite amusing and for the record would like to say that I am not intimidated in any way by this pathetic individual. Dunc|☺ 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

Reject. Please try earlier parts of the dispute resolution. James F. (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for NPOV reasons Fred Bauder 15:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject without prejudice until currently open RfC is concluded. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
Reject as per Kelly ➥the Epopt 00:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject with great prejudice. One need only take a cursory look at Talk:Intelligent design to see that FeloniousMonk's actions are EXACTLY what we expect our admins to do. →Raul654 07:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to review evidence raised in RfC of potential abuse of administrative authority and misconduct by adminstrators. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as per Raul654. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as per Raul654 and Fennec. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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?
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?
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.
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.
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]

User:Rex071404

Per this page, [184], and it's advice to bring issue's pertaining to enforcement of a previous arbitration ruling to the RfAr, this information has been posted here.

Recently, Rex has been causing a lot of trouble at John Kerry. He has consistently edit-warred and has forced the page into protection Twice [185] [186] while at the same time violating 3RR Twice [187] [188]. The issue is the same exact one that has been brought up in previous ArbComm hearing's: John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. In fact Rex talks about that in his opening statement in his first ArbComm hearing. [189]. Numerous people have attempted to dialog with Rex regarding this, so much so, that the discussion now occupies 6 archive spaces and approximately 700 kb worth of talk not including the current talkpage. [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] A vote was recently attempted to try and close the discussion. [196] Even after that, Rex continued to push his POV, which resulted in the page being protected for the second time. [197]

My question is this, do the Remedies, Enforcements and Judgements from previous Arbitrations still apply to this case? [198] Or have they all expired as Rex claims they have? [199] Do the three previous arbitration cases and two previous RfCs [200] [201] which involved this same exact issue; John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart; constitute an attempt at other methods of dispute resolution? Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case against Rex over the same issue? Or is there a "Requesting Enforcement of Previous Arbitration Ruling" template that I am missing? -- Mr. Tibbs 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I back up Mr Tibbs's intervention here. Rex has reduced the John Kerry page to chaos with endless nitpicking rows (Does a wounded man have a 'wound'? Is a bandage necessarily made of cloth? Medical definitions ad nausuam, a list of 50 'issues' he wants discussed, which actually boil down to five repeated in different ways over and over again, etc.) Rex's antics have alienated people who tried to be fair to him and listened to his endless raising of the same issues over and over and over and over, or rather his agreeing something, moving on, then returning back to square one 48 hours later and starting the argument all over again. The article and talk pages are right now unusable and will remain so until until Rex's antics are dealt with and ended. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I'll throw in my own voice here. Though Rex is technically more polite than he was before the previous RfArs, he is doing exactly the same thing: obsessively focusing on doing whatever he can to make sure that John Kerry is not elected President in 2004. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Except for those parts of the decision with explicit sunset provisions (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4) the decision is still in full force. →Raul654 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's learned a few things from his self-imposed exile (which I think ArbCom was foolish to accept): he's learned how to be obnoxious without crossing the bounds established in the arbcom cases. He hasn't learned how not to obsess, though. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. He is not supposed to revert, so instead he takes changes people made and puts in stuff he's put in 20 times before. So it's not literally a revert, but it basically is a revert. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is, whose job is it to enforce the rulings that he is continuing, with more cunning and subtlety this time, to break? All that seems to happen is that an edit war breaks out, the page is protected and some well meaning admin (who hasn't time to read the 'War and Peace'-size archives) suggests that the issues be discussed first rather than edit warring. Everyone tells them that we have listened and talked and discussed and voted repeatedly and that the problem is that Rex ignores it all and goes back to the start and begins the whole charade again, and again, and again ad infinitum. Nobody seems able to actually know the ruling and enforce it, so the page and talk page ends up stuck in a timewarp of Rex's let start again for the nth time edits, with rows, edit war, protection, unprotection, 'please all communicate', Rex's epistles, rows, edit war, protection . . . etc. People need help (or free Wikipedia Valium!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Other than the question Jtdirl brought up, there are still Many unanswered questions in this Request for Clarification. Such as Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case with Rex over the same issue, or is it possible to just have the remedies from previous ArbComm's enforced? Because they currently aren't being enforced. Rex's two recent 3RR violations were completely ignored. Raul's answer brings up new questions too. First we hear: "Except for those parts of the decision with explicit sunset provisions (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4) the decision is still in full force." [202] But then later we hear: "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did." [203] So which is it? Is Enforcement 7 being given special consideration after the earlier "sunset provision" statement? Was there a typo in the original Arbitration Committee decision? Given the importance of these questions, are there other Arbitrators who could weigh in here? -- Mr. Tibbs 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is still in full force, except for those parts that have expired (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4, 7). My original list on this page should have included 7, but I somehow glanced over it. →Raul654 21:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 ===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.
+That said, my personal situation does give me time to do work for Wikipedia, a very worthwhile project. All in all, I think it worked out well enough. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 ===Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)===