User:Jcoonrod/sandbox2

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

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

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

At the same time, because one of our founders was Werner Erhard, the founder of est, and because (from 1977-1990) he encouraged participants in his program to support us (a support that was strictly one-way), detractors of Mr. Erhard sometimes attacked us, and sometimes generated media stories alleging impropriety with lines like - "thinly veiled recruiting arm for a mind-bending cult." Generally - when presented with the facts - publishers issued corrections, retractions or apologies. The only "mainstream" newspaper to ever carry such an article with the Sunday Times of London in 1986, and we sued and won damages. The details of the settlement are in User:Jcoonrod/sandbox3

Lately, a number of individuals have resurrected these early, false allegations, leveraging the power of Wikipedia to promote their point of view. Sometimes, like User:Descendall and User:Enkido the attacks were coupled with insults to me personally:

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

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

User:Smeelgova however has taken a different tack, claiming to have no POV, yet working daily - sometimes round-the-clock - researching and listing every incident in the past where people expressed a negative point of view, and calling this balanced. As her history of contributions shows, her work has focused almost exclusively on Werner Erhard, and anyone or any organization with which he may have had a connection - creating numerous pages for non-notable individuals, such as Ellis Duell[sic].

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

In attempting mediation, I endeavored to work with Smeelgova to establish a truce format and an agreement not to revert over edits during mediation. She, however, cast such direct discussion as an attack, as this snippet from the discussion page shows.

''The user Jcoonrod has been reverting for the past 3 years. Surely this user of all must see his complaints as hypocrisy. I, on the other hand, have NOT reverted, but simply maintained a neutral approach through collaboration with numerous other independent editors, who are not employees of The Hunger Project.Smeelgova 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)''

''Smeelgova, you admitted above going back to a version before my whole series of edits - that, by definition, is a revert. We are hopefully heading into mediation. During this period you and I have struggled to come up with a working framework - not simply revert between them, and I thought we had reached such an agreement with John's format. So - I ask you again - shall we agree to stop reverting during this period or not?Jcoonrod 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)''

''This is simply silly back and forth banter, and I resent being personally verbally attacked in this manner, instead of politely debating the issues at hand. I have stated previously above, it is the user Jcoonrod who has consistently reverted over the past 3 years, not myself.Smeelgova 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)''

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

Smeelgova is on thin ice, especially with a Mediation pending.--BradPatrick 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

''I understand the issues at hand, however I am not very familiar with the WP:OFFICE policy. Please explain why I am on "thin ice", even though I have cited references and sources for the aforementioned quotations?Smeelgova 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)''

''I'm not the best person to respond to this given my role, but I can tell you that the pattern of editing that you have engaged in over the past month, with your selection of articles, POV (in my estimation) and tendency to edit in only a very narrow area warrant very careful evaluation of exactly what it is you are doing. I just took a look at the page you put together on Harry Margolis and your choice of supposedly "relevant" legal items, and I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe. I believe you are going to be called out for your viewpoint. You might want to ask yourself if, as the userpage of User:Essjay asks, with every click of the "save page" button you are making Wikipedia a better place. Are you?--BradPatrick 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)''

''Please define, "better place". If by "better place" we mean the truth, then that is one story. But if by "better place" we simply mean to avoid any sort of confrontational controversial issue, than Wikipedia would quickly begin to reflect a certain type of POV. As to the particular article you cited, this was a major battle within this individual's life, where he was indicted by the federal government on 23 counts. Granted I am not an attorney, but it does seem relevant. My motivation here is to compile information otherwise not readily accessible to the public, from reputable sources. However, if I am beginning to be threatened from all fronts, with no Wikipedia advocate or support of my own, than I will have no choice but to cease and desist. I must say that I am surprised at these actions from devoted Wikipedia members, I had thought that in an encyclopedia as comprehensive as this, users would wish to see all of the history for an article, positive and negative, controversial or not, as long as it is factual and accurate, and cited.Smeelgova 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)''

A secondary aspect of our complaint is that the material that is being linked to and referenced by Smeelgova is illegally posted full copies of copyrighted materials, reprinted by anti-cult websites without permission but waving the flag of a false interpretation of Fair Use. The authors of these articles have attempted to remove them from circulation because they are unfair, false or defamatory. We recommend that Wikipedia clarify its policy on reliable sources to exclude this kind of second-hand, illegal reference.

Our complaint boils down to this: Smeelgova et al are using the article on THP, and the creation of numerous pages on non-notable individuals to resurrect a long-settled debate and pretend it is relevant and important. It is neither. Permitting this campaign to persist does material damage to a reputable charitable organization.

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