Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA

Mediation Case: 2006-10-08 BSA
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Heqwm 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?

Boy Scouts of America


 * Who's involved?


 * Johntex
 * Sumoeagle179
 * Gadget850
 * Rlevse
 * Fix Bayonets! 27 Oct 2006


 * What's going on?

I wish to include in the BSA article the facts that: They claimed to be a religious organization They later claimed not to be They published a libelous and vitriolic article

Other editors, under a variety of pretexts, have deleted these edits.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?

For my edits to be retained.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No

Mediator response
Recuse due to my current involvement in this organization and past involvement in this article. CQJ 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not mediating, though I see some discussion is taking place already. Heartily encouraged. Also, as it's MedCab, not MedCom, you don't have to use their style of discussion, but if you'd like to, go ahead. ~Kylu ( u | t )  03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be able to take this case up, although I want to make sure that everybody involved in this issue feels I am a suitable candidate. Before I look at everything in depth then, I would like to know if there are any objections to me working this mediation because I am an Eagle Scout. Markovich292 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If nobody has any objections and assuming you're willing, please update the template at the top to change from "new" to "open" and add your user link (signature minus date) to the mediators= line please. If you need any help, please feel free to contact me. Thanks for being willing to mediate! ~Kylu ( u | t )  17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to Markovich292 serving as mediator in this case. Johntex\talk 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for your response, although I don't think I should take this up without a response from all parties (especially Heqwm). I must say though, it seems as if mediation is rapidly becoming unnecessary because Heqwm has not even contributed in 10 days.  I have looked over the material, and he was the only person representing an opposing view on this issue...without him then, there is no longer a dispute, correct?  Markovich292  00:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, but just in case, I'd say give him a few more days. Not only has he not responded here, he hasn't made any edits at all since 09 Oct. You being mediator is fine with me.Rlevse 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He is back with the same old stuff. See the additions to my comments. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no objections to my involvement as mediator, I will officially accept this case so the situation can be resolved quickly. In a few days (at most) I will be asking for some further information and/or statements from everybody about this issue. Once that is done, we can hopefully go from there and work something out in short order, and to everyone's satisfaction. Markovich292 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was originally leaning towards giving you the benefit of the doubt, but the continued lack of civility and evenhandedness among numerous BSA members creates severe doubts in my mind that such a member can be objective.Heqwm 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet you wait until after the mediator has accepted the case? I know you've not been away from Wikipedia because you have been editting in between times.  I am wondering if you intend to cooperate with this mediation cabal case, which you started, or not.  If not, then perhaps we should move to the next step, which would be a Request for Comment on Heqwm or perhaps a filing with the Arbitration committee.  Johntex\talk 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already shown yourself to be completely unwilling to participate in a civil discussion, and now you're accusing me of impropriety on a ridiculous basis. Your presence here is counterproductive.Heqwm 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I am accusing you based upon a very strong basis - the basis of fact. You are being disruptive to the project, and you are doing it deliberately. Johntex\talk 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your concerns Heqwm, but since I have already accepted this case after asking for objections, I will not be dropping it at this time. All I ask is that you not make any sort of judgment about me before observing how I deal with this issue. I am quite confident that you will see I am objective and genuinely interested in producing an article on par with wikipedia standards.

Now, the first thing I am going to ask you all to do is stop with the personal comments. Forget everything you think about the other editors involved here; just be on your best behavior and keep in mind what mediation is about. I will be creating a new section at the bottom of this page shortly, and I expect it to remain on topic. Markovich292 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * Okay, I'm new to this issue, other than having read most of the above. It seems to me a single argument by a single person within the BSA does not rise to the level of being encyclopedic in the situation presented here.  There are people in every organization who say something maybe they shouldn't have.  Only in rare instances should that be encyclopedic.  Like when former US President William J. Clinton said something like "Maybe I raised taxes too much" and almost no one in the media reported it, except the one media member who reported on the excuses used by other media members not to report that one admission.  In this BSA case, no way does such a statement become so important that it warrants being on the BSA page.  Actually, it would be unencyclopedic.
 * Okay, I'm new to this issue, other than having read most of the above. It seems to me a single argument by a single person within the BSA does not rise to the level of being encyclopedic in the situation presented here.  There are people in every organization who say something maybe they shouldn't have.  Only in rare instances should that be encyclopedic.  Like when former US President William J. Clinton said something like "Maybe I raised taxes too much" and almost no one in the media reported it, except the one media member who reported on the excuses used by other media members not to report that one admission.  In this BSA case, no way does such a statement become so important that it warrants being on the BSA page.  Actually, it would be unencyclopedic.


 * It seems to me the calls back and forth to ban each other are not necessary.


 * I agree with Alecmconroy and those in a similar vein. --SafeLibraries 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's an even more subtle question. Pulliam does not represent the BSA, however, they BSALegal.org has included his published op-ed piece inline on a web-site .  They do not give any commentary, pro or con, about the piece.  They weren't involved in writing or publishing it.  It's just there.  There is no evidence the Pulliam's article is libelous (would have to be proven in court), but it is probably controversial - see Austin Cline's comments cited above.  The subtle question is - Does it reflect in a notable way on the BSA that they included this particular article on their legal summary web page?     I tend to believe that this particular bit of information is quite unencyclopedic.  --NThurston 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BSALegal.org is registered to [Bork Communications Group http://bork.com/]. Per Bork, they "help corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation."  I have no idea of how much oversight the BSA has over material presented on BSALegal.org.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point - The main page of BSALegal.org says, "This website was created on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America to inform the public about the legal issues that confront Scouting." While one could reasonably infer from the information on the main page  that the National Council was involved in setting up the page, there is no indication that National Council has direct oversight regarding the particular content.  The general approach of the site seems to be to "clip" articles regarding legal issues affecting the BSA, usually without much commentary.  --NThurston 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pulliam is (or was, his name is not currently listed) a member of Pacific Legal Foundation’s Board of Trustees([] at bottom), which represented Evans in Evans v. Berkeley, the Sea Scouts berth lawsuit ([]). The offcial BSA website has bsalegal.org on its page of "Other BSA websites" []Brian Westley 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries: It seems to me a single argument by a single person within the BSA does not rise to the level of being encyclopedic in the situation presented here.

The issue is not that single person made a claim. Mark Pulliam wrote an article. The BSA published it. And no one in the BSA is complaining. Why is that? The BSA claims to aspire to trustworthiness, yet as far as I can tell, there isn't a single person in the entire BSA that thinks that the BSA should take action against Pulliam. Not notable? I can't for the world see why. How is the fact that the BSA is made up by a bunch of hypocritical bigots not notable?


 * To say that Pulliam wrote an article and the BSA published it is highly misleading. Pulliam wrote an op-ed piece (not usually thought of as the same as an article) and The Daily Transcript (a San Diego newspaper) published it.  BSAlegal clipped it onto their web-site, but it is clear that this is a 'mirror' of the Transcript article, not a BSA publication.  There is no evidence that they even endorse the article, other than to include it as one of many to allow readers to become informed about what is being said about the issue.   --NThurston 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NThurston: Pulliam does not represent the BSA

It sure looks like it. As I've said, no one expressed any outrage at what he said. And take a look at this page: http://www.bsalegal.org/what-others-are-saying-202.asp

The titles make it clear that Pulliam's attitude is widely shared. Looking at the articles, they make claims like "Not even a high court mandate, however, has stopped gay-rights groups from trying to push the Scouts out of the public marketplace." "While the ACLU will have $1 million more in resources, the Boy Scouts must continue to pay for the litigation out of charitable funds and membership dues... Boy Scouts will, as always, continue to defend their constitutional right to be treated the same as any other youth group leasing property from the city." "Anyone who has been a part of the Boy Scouts organization knows that it is a far cry from a religious worship service." And those are just the first three articles, respectively. It's clear to me that the idea that it's okay to lie and deceive to promote the interests of the BSA is widely held within the BSA. Is there any article there that explains the ACLU position?


 * You want to make the claim that BSALegal is intentionally and knowingly putting false information on their site. There are two problems with that: 1. They are simply clipping articles and essays from other published sources, so we would all have to believe the media also engages in putting for false information.  And even then, whose job is it to check facts?  The original publisher.  2. "Lie" and "deceive" are only your opinion and as such cannot be in Wikipedia.  --NThurston 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They do not give any commentary, pro or con, about the piece.

And the fact that the BSA feels absolutely no need to comment on dishonesty is not notable?

They weren't involved in writing or publishing it.

What are you talking about? They published it.


 * See comment above. I think this is a mis-leading statement.  --NThurston 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence the Pulliam's article is libelous

Kinda contradicting SafeLibraries (and yourself), aren't you? I mean, the fact that you are seriously trying to deny the manifest dishonesty of the article shows that Pulliam's attitudes are held by more than just him.


 * "Libelous" is a term with a specific meaning. Libel must be proven in a court.  You have presented no evidence that anyone (but you) has even raised an assertion of libel. --NThurston 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While one could reasonably infer from the information on the main page that the National Council was involved in setting up the page, there is no indication that National Council has direct oversight regarding the particular content.

That's just dodging responsibility. If you use the BSA name, you are answerable to the BSA. Maybe it would take some effort, but if they really cared, they could get it done. This is such a lame excuse. You can't give someone a blank check, then claim that you have no responsibility for how they fill it out.

The general approach of the site seems to be to "clip" articles regarding legal issues affecting the BSA, usually without much commentary.

More precisely, it clips articles which mispresent the issues in favor of the BSA, giving its readers an unbalanced and misinformed view.Heqwm 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Misrepresent," "unbalanced," and "misinformed" are only your opinion. Perhaps their opinion is that they are presenting the "truth" on these issues OR are trying to provide "balance" to other "anti-BSA" web-sites.  Bottom line is that a Wiki editor cannot be judge and jury on what is the truth WP:NOR.  By design, Wiki allows the assumption that any external authority's conclusions can be included as factual.  The relevant fact here is that BSAlegal "clips" many articles onto their site usually without much commentary.  I don't think we can go beyond that without violating WP:NOR.  --NThurston 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gadget850

''Heqwm has now inserted the tag five times in the Boy Scouts of America article. The last tag was added right after the cite.''

He has added the fact tag to three statements- all right after the citation.

None of the statements for which I inserted the tag had a valid cite.

''He changed the following for NPOV:
 * "Scouts are recognized for their achievements" to "The BSA recognizes the achievements of Scouts"
 * I don't see any difference in these statements, except that the first flows better.''

1. The first is written in the passive voice. 2. The second creates an antecedent for the "It" that starts the following sentence.

The statement he changed has a reference that is the Venturing website.

Yes, and it's clearly marketing pablum. Wikipedia doesn't exist to uncritically repeat PR-speak. If you want to make such a ridiculously non-NPOV statement, the least you can do is to present some actual evidence, rather than simply pointing the reader to such a blatantly biased website as Venturing own's.

Once again, he is using in-line citations in an atricle that uses cite.php.

Note that while I have asked what is meant by the term "in-line", my question has not been answered.

I fixed these cites the last time as an example, but apparently that was an exercise in frustration.

I should go to the trouble of learning a format that takes four lines to encode a single cite, for cites that are just going to be deleted anyway?

Statement by involved party:
has repeatedly claimed I am lying dispite my attempts to difuse the situation and the evidence I have presented to show that not only did I not lie, but that I was correct. I request the user be blocked for personal attacks and incivility and for making Wikipedia a battleground. Policies violated are What Wikipedia is not (battleground), Civility, No personal attacks.

Heqwm added some text to Boy Scouts of America stating "While the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness, in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values.". This was reverted by User:Rlevse with the edit summary "rv - POV". Heqwm then reverted Rlevse. I reverted with the edit summary "rv - POV". I also left an explanation for my action at Heqwm's talk page.

Heqwm then added similar text, "As the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness that causes many people to accept their claims uncritically, it is important to not that in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values." which I reverted with popups. Again, I explained my action on Heqwm's talk page.  I also posted to the Article Talk page, where I found that several other editors had been trying to explain to Heqwm that such additions needed to cite sources or they were original research. At this point, Heqwm claimed that s/he did provide a source. I pointed out that neither of the edits I reverted contained any source or reference; and I invited Heqwm to provide a source that meets WP:CITE.

Then Heqwm did provide two web links. I pointed out to Heqwm that s/he did not put either of those two sources into the edits I reverted. I also pointed out that neither reference seemed to use the word "honest" at all, and that they did not appear to back up the claim Heqwm was attempting to make. Heqwm then accused me of making statements that are "flat out wrong" but provided no explanation for what was supposedly wrong about my statement.  At this point, I provided a very complete explanation of how my statements were not wrong, and how I was correct in saying that the changes I reverted did not provide any source or reference.  I also pointed Heqwm once again to WP:CITE. At this point, Heqwm said my statement was "an utter lie" (emphasis mine), even though I had backed up my statement with diffs from the article history.

Thinking perhaps Heqwm still had not read WP:CITE and did not understand what I meant when I talked about citing sources, I attempted to explain again. Heqwm then claimed I was attempting to modify the definition of "cite" to suit my purposes, yet gave a substantially similar definitoon of the word "cite".  I explained one more time he needed to follow WP:CITE and provide a reference that backs up his claim.

I again backed up my statement (that he had provided no source for his claims) with diffs, and explained to him that saying I am lying is a personal attack and may result in a block. He merely repeated his allegation, saying "if you don't want people to call you on your lies, then don't lie" (emphasis mine) 

I believe that Heqwm has violated WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a battleground, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement."

I believe that Heqwm has also violated WP:Civility which says that "serious violations include...lies" By saying that I have lied, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, s/he has violated this policy. Even if I had lied, which I did not, calling someone a liar is also listed as a violation, even if true.

Further, I believe that Heqwm has violated WP:No personal attacks by repeatedly claiming I was lying, even when I provided evidence to the contrary.

Heqwm editor has also engaged in other uncivil and argumentative behavior at Talk:Boy Scouts of America. There is evidence given on that page that Heqwm has persisted in this type of behavior for a period of six months, uncer an IP address. I have given Heqwm the opportunity to apologize for saying I am lying, but he has refused to do so. I have pointed Heqwm to our relevant policies but he/she does not follow them.

I believe that blocking is in order and that Heqwm should be bared from editting articles related to the Boy Scouts of America for a period of at least one year. Perhaps that will provide him/her the opportunity to learn how to properly cite sources, especially when attempting to include negative information in violation of a consensus of editors. Johntex\talk 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Update - Request for community ban posted to WP:ANI
(Copied from WP:ANI) I request be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him. I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so.  Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.  Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.  I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago. He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.  I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? Johntex\talk 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Johntex
 has repeatedly claimed I am lying dispite my attempts to difuse the situation and the evidence I have presented to show that not only did I not lie, but that I was correct.

Note that Johntex is making a completely frivolous accusation of me being a "vandal", while hypocritically accusing me of acting in an uncivil manner. His attempts to "difuse[sic]" the situation include the patronizing statement "My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I am making statements that are flat-out wrong", the dismissive statement "As for your statement I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you.' no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to post here" (both before my accusation of lies), and then, after I accused him of lying, threatening to have me banned. His "evidence" that he was correct was a selective portion of my edit which, either due to carelessness or dishonesty, omitted the relevant portion.

Then Heqwm did provide two web links. I pointed out to Heqwm that s/he did not put either of those two sources into the edits I reverted.

That claim was false. I informed Johntex of this fact and asked him to review the edits, yet he continued to make this claim, either not bothering to actually read the edits in their entirety, or simply deciding to engage in blatant dishonesty. I then explained where to find the cites, and he still made his claim. I followed this by giving him a link directly to one of the cites and yet he still insists in making this claim. Either he is making a claim that he knows is false, or he is making a claim after deliberately ignoring clear evidence of its error.

Heqwm then accused me of making statements that are "flat out wrong" but provided no explanation for what was supposedly wrong about my statement.

That is false.

Heqwm then claimed I was attempting to modify the definition of "cite" to suit my purposes, yet gave a substantially similar definitoon of the word "cite".

The main bone of contention being that Johntex apparently considered the statements "You have unsourced claims" and "You have no cites" to be equivalent.

Further, I believe that Heqwm has violated WP:No personal attacks by repeatedly claiming I was lying, even when I provided evidence to the contrary.

As that page specifically states that personal attacks are statements about a person, rather than their acts, this is a baseless accusation and is itself a violation of civility, especially with the threat of blocking.

Heqwm editor has also engaged in other uncivil and argumentative behavior at Talk:Boy Scouts of America.

Yet Johntex fails to mention what this is.

There is evidence given on that page that Heqwm has persisted in this type of behavior for a period of six months, uncer an IP address.

My very first edit to the BSA page was less than two months ago. I demand that Johntex explain his accusation, as it looks for all the world like one of those "personal attacks" he claims I am guilty of.

I have pointed Heqwm to our relevant policies but he/she does not follow them. I consider this statement to be rather misleading, as this is the first time Johntex has mentioned WP:NOT or WP:Civility to me.

I believe that serious disciplinary action against Johntex is in order.

Comments from Gadget850 ( Ed)

 * 9 Oct 2006:
 * I believe that Heqwm has edited in the past as User:69.107.97.36, as these same statements were made from that IP. Much of this issue was already discussed at User talk:69.107.97.36 beginning on 31 Aug.


 * Major discussion of this issue is at Talk:Boy Scouts of America under "Censorship in the name of NPOV" and "NPOV Dispute".


 * On 8 Oct 2006, Heqwm added the following text to the BSA] article:

In the case of Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the BSA claimed that it was a religious organization, and therefore exempt from the law under the First Amendment. However, after preferential treatment for them in San Diego was challenged, the BSA, in contradiction with their position in new Jersey, asserted that it was not a religious organization, and that there were therefore no constitutional barriers to preferential treatment. They also published an article by Mark Pulliam, a lawyer involved in Scouting, attacking the ACLU, atheists, gays, and the presiding judge in the aforementioned case, accusing them of being “mean-spirited”, “extremist”, anti-Christian, opposed to the First Amendment, and bigoted, and trying to link them to the KKK, Nazis, child molesters, drug dealers, and “Big Brother” of 1984. Despite the fact that the article repeatedly supported its claims with false statements, it was posted on the website http://www.bsalegal.org, which apparently is a website run by the BSA, indicating that this libel was condoned by the BSA.

Johntex quickly reverted this text, and in my opinion he was correct to do so. Heqwm then created the article BSA Dishonesty. The article consisted of two paragraphs copied wholesale from Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and the above paragraph. I placed two tags and a POV tag on this article. The first fact tag was for the scoutingforall.org link, as there is no mention of Dale in that article, therefore the cite does not support the statement made. The second fact tag was on the statement that Mark Pulliam (a living person) made "false statements". I noted on the talk page my reasoning for the fact and POV tags. An admin deleted BSA Dishonesty soon after.


 * Many of the edits by Heqwm have consisted of variations on the same theme, with no proper citations, as an examination of the Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article histories will show.


 * Heqwm's whole issue of BSA honesty seems to hinge on an op-ed piece by a lawyer that was quoted on a website run for the BSA by by Bork Communications (I'm guessing that was the "apparently run by the BSA" part and was easy to look up). The Pulliam article (which has never actually been cited by Heqwm) is at .  I personally do not like the article and its tone, but it is an opinion piece.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I heartily support the NPOV policy, and have defended it depite my personal bias. As a member of the BSA, I have my own agenda, as does any editor.  I strive to be both friendly and honest, but I refuse to be bullied and I refuse to accept the impure logic presented in defense of the statements in question.


 * 9 Oct 2006:


 * I see that Heqwm added the following to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and was reverted:

The BSA has, on multiple occasions, asserted itself to be a religious organization in order to claim priviliges associated with that status. However, in cases in which this status would be detrimental, advocates for the BSA will contest that there is any basis for the BSA being considered a religious organization.


 * The following was added to the lead-in of Boy Scouts of America:

The BSA has a website on which they publish articles, one of which, by Mark Pulliam, consisted almost entirely of false statements and vicious attacks on those that don't agree with the BSA ; one commentator said that he was "not sure what other label would more accurately describe Mark Pulliam" than "outright liar".

At least there are now some cites that are related to the statements. Since I have specifically note the Pulliam cite three times in discussion, I'm glad to see it finally used.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 07:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I formatted the cites added by Heqwm to use the cite.php format used in the rest of the article and used the cite web template. Hopefully this will stand as an example of how to do this properly, which has been one of the minor points.
 * 9 Oct 2006


 * User:Fremont steve (a new user with one edit as of now) has reverted Heqwm's last edits to Boy Scouts of America.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm has now inserted the tag five times in the Boy Scouts of America article. The last tag was added right after the cite. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9 Oct 2006


 * 9 Oct 2006
 * Each statement in question has now been cited. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 22 Oct 2006

Heqwm is back. He has added the fact tag to three statements- all right after the citation.

He changed the following for NPOV:
 * "Scouts are recognized for their achievements" to "The BSA recognizes the achievements of Scouts"
 * I don't see any difference in these statements, except that the first flows better.


 * In the Venturing section he changed "It" to "According to its website, Venturing" and added an embedded comment "Google gives 2B hits for "website", 600M for "web site". Also note that on Wikipedia, "web site" is redirected to the "website" article. I think that "website" is the standard term."
 * The statement he changed has a reference that is the Venturing website.


 * "There have also been several cases in which an adult Scout leader or a Scout has been removed from the BSA or a Scouting unit for being an atheist, agnostic, or homosexual as a result of these policies." was changed to "Also as a result of these policies, there have been several cases in which an adult Scout leader or a Scout has been expelled from the BSA or a Scouting unit for being an atheist, agnostic, or homosexual.
 * "these membership policies" changed to "these exclusion policies"

He the added the Pulliam statement again: "The BSA has a website on which they publish articles, one of which, by Mark Pulliam, contained such claims as 'Like the Grinch who stole Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to prevent San Diego youth from enjoying outdoor activities...', and 'According to the ACLU, only groups who profess 'acceptable' beliefs have civil rights; those who don't (such as the Boy Scouts) must be ostracized'. In response to the claims in the article, one commentator said that he was 'not sure what other label would more accurately describe Mark Pulliam' than 'outright liar'."
 * Once again, he is using in-line citations in an atricle that uses cite.php. I fixed these cites the last time as an example, but apparently that was an exercise in frustration.  I know he is capable of learning as he finally started using the Pulliam cite that I pretty much gave him.

So, its pretty much the same boring stuff with nothing new to add. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets address references for a bit. The BSA article uses Cite.php in conjunction with citation templates. An in-line reference is where a link is simply dropped in-line with the text, such as. There are two problems with in-line references:
 * 23 Oct 2006 - references
 * When you mix in-line and cite.php references, reference numbers are duplicated because these two systems are numbered separately. Take a look at the older version of the BSA article.  It contains two references for [1] and [2], but only the cite.php references show in the References section.
 * An in-line reference is simply a raw link that shows no other information. Take a look at the  next version of the BSA article and see how those same references are formatted.  There, the Pulliam section now has references [2] and [3] that link down to the References section.  Look at ref 2:
 * 2. ^ Pulliam, Mark (2004). Boy Scout ruling a triumph of intolerance. BSALegal.org. Bork Communications Group. Retrieved on 9 October 2006.

Now you see who wrote the article, the title, the publisher and how old the reference is. Consider this: websites dissappear and pages get deleted periodically. If BSALegal were to go away, you could search using the reference information and find that the original article was published in the San Diego Source.

It does take a little more effort to do this, but it makes a proper reference. I started a tutorial a couple of weeks age at User:Gadget850/Cite (it needs a bit more work). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 23 Oct 2006 - BSALegal.org


 * From the BSA website to BSALegal.org, you would click on Other BSA Web Sites to see a list. BSALegal.org is listed here as:


 * Legal Issues Web Site
 * This site was developed on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America to inform the public about the issues that confront the Scouting movement.


 * Checking the DNS records, BSALegal.org is registered to Bork Communication Group. This is not readily apparent to most readers.  Looking at Bork's site, they state:

"Bork Communication Group, (formerly Bork & Associates), helps corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation. We help clients use the techniques of modern communication to avoid litigation, win litigation, and above all, protect reputation. ... We pride ourselves on our ability to insert facts into the noise and confusion of a lawsuit, to establish corporate credibility, clarity of message and critical mass of opinion. We tell our client’s story so that it is heard, understood and remembered."


 * It is my opinion that BSALegal.org (registered on 27-Jan-2004) was developed as a counterweight to other sites such as Scouting for All (26-Apr-1998), BSA Discrimination.org (02-Aug-2001) and Inclusive Scouting (02-Mar-2003). Each site is presenting information that supports their side of the issues.  The biggest difference is that BSALegal.org is a professional site, run by a company that specializes in legal communications.  There are a few other pro-BSA sites, but they don't really offer much.  BSALegal.org does present its case better- issues are covered from start to finish, where the other sites present an article that really is the start of a story, but there is no real follow-up.

Comments from Alecmconroy
My full comment on this debate is here. But to summarize briefly:


 * 1) This addition, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on the membership controversy page, not the main BSA page.
 * 2) As it currently stands, the addition is original research.  Heqwm has not found a source for the claim that the BSA's arguments have been contradictory.
 * 3) If a source discussing the contradiction can be found, it probably would be giving this criticism undue weight to discuss it.  As it's used in this case, "religious organization" is a legal term.  As the laws and jurisdictions vary from case to case, it is not necessarily contradictory to argue the BSA is a religious organization as defined under some laws, but not a religious organization as defined under other laws.  Whether these arguments are valid or not is decided by the judicial system.

--Alecmconroy 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Rlevse
I totally agree with Alecmconroy (pls see his full stmt on the BSA article's talk page) and with about 99% of Johntex and Gadget850. The basic problem as I see it is that Heqwm's edits are very POV as one can easily see what his opinion is (a NPOV edit wouldn't do that) and they are often unsourced and if they have sources, they are weak at best. His edit of 02:04 on Oct 9, 2006 to Boy Scouts of America is not only misleading and interpretive of what is in the refs, but even libelous and could get Wikipedia sued, towit: "almost entirely of false statements and vicious attacks on those that don't agree with the BSA". Pulliam wrote an op-ed piece. The ref by Cline is in the same vein (if Pulliam is being vicious, Cline is being vicious) but the opposite viewpoint yet Heqwm fails to mention its nature. I also agree with the Fremont edit that this edit, if it stays in, belongs in the controversies section as a summary, not in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. I also agree with Alecmconroy that the major part of this topic belongs in the fully-developed FA Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. The stmt "almost entirely of false statements and vicious attacks on those that don't agree with the BSA" definitely needs to come out. It is not up to wiki editors to make points and push agendas as Heqwm is trying to do, it is our job to make an encyclopedia. The alleged hypocrisy is one piece of controversy over the BSA, not a core of its program. Rlevse 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See Gadget850's notes on Heqwm's 22 Oct 2006 edits. The addition of fact tags is clearly POV and disruptive. The intro remarks on Pulliam are out of place and if worthy of being included at all should be in the body, not the lead. Rlevse 14:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from NThurston
It is fairly obvious what Heqwm is trying to do. Heqwm wants to make the case that the BSA's claims and actions in two specific legal cases are inconsistent with each other, hence are "evidence" that the BSA does not practice what it preaches. Heqwm has continually run afoul of two Wikipedia policies - WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Editors have continually reverted or deleted Heqwm's edits based on one or the other of these policies. There has been ample discussion of these actions on the various talk pages above, with discussion about how and when this claim could conceivably be added to an encyclopedia article. However, Heqwm's reaction to these actions is to engage in name-calling, personal attacks, and to simply re-insert the text in basically the same format either in the same place or somewhere else. Requests for citations have been basically ignored other than to provide an occasional link to a web-site that does not in fact contain the information the Heqwm claims it does. I also agree that many of Heqwm's statements are blatantly libelous and potentially damaging to the Wikipedia.

It is important to note that most editors, even after deleting or reverting, have offered suggestions or advice on how to modify the edits in a way that would be acceptable. Here is a summary of those instructions, and the eventual problem that I believe will prevent these claims from being added in the near future. (Similar instructions can be found on Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies.)

1. Heqwm would need to provide a clear citation from a case that the BSA claims privileges based on its religious nature along with proper documentation that meets the criteria in WP:CITE. (Heqwm has referred to the Dale case, however, only in general terms. The citation needs to be written by the BSA's representatives and be clear as to what the claim is.)

2. Heqwm would also need to provide a clear citation from another case or source that the BSA claims privileges based on not being religious in nature, again properly documented as per WP:CITE.

3. If there exist two such things, then a third citation would be need to document that the statements are contradictory. Heqwm wants us to take his/her word for it, which clearly violates WP:NOR. Conclusions are not to be drawn by Wiki-editors. We are here to report on conclusions from other sources. I suppose the first two could be included in an article to leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, but it doesn't sounds as if Heqwm likes that approach. There is a perceived need for a pound of flesh.

A further complication is that since these are legal cases, the interpretation and meaning of terms and phrases is defined only in a very narrow context - the laws and rules of evidence of the courts involved. This is why the third element is so necessary. If this is really true, then certainly, someone somewhere has presented this argument in a legal case.

As to the third of Heqwm's concerns: The BSALegal website contains a host of links and inline citations of third-party publications. One of these is an op-ed piece published in a San Diego newspaper. Heqwm's claims that the BSA has "published a libelous and vitriolic article" is patently false. Inline inclusion or citation of an already published article cannot be construed in this manner. Furthermore, this statement runs clearly afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The term "libelous" would constitute original research in the absence of a legal opinion establishing libel. The term "vitriolic" is POV. Normally, an editor could state something to the effect of "The BSA Legal website contains an op-ed piece by --- which defends the BSA position, {OR} which takes issues with the decision, {etc}" However, this would probably run afoul of Notability. Of all the things that one would write about the BSA in an encyclopedia article, it hardly seems notable that they have included a particular op-ed piece on one web-site in the absence of some external reason why this would be notable. For example, if somebody sued them over this and was awarded a libel claim, there might be some additional reason to look into it further. But it really isn't notable as currently presented.

In my opinion, Heqwm is not interested in writing an encyclopedia, but is trying to use Wikipedia to promote hatred of the BSA's leaders and their policies. This hatred has spilled over to be directed towards the editors listed above. Heqwm has not make a good faith attempt to contribute appropriate material, even though there is a very accessible place (controversies article) and method (appropriately sourced references) for doing so, and many of us have tried to help frame the debate in the context of Wikipedia so that this information (if it can be verified) could be included. --NThurston 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Gadget850 ( Ed)
Many of the edits by Heqwm have consisted of variations on the same theme, with no proper citations, as an examination of the Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article histories will show.

It is not true that none of my edits had proper citations, nor was this consistently cited as the reason for the deletions. Furthermore, my understanding is that when one believes that a claim is not properly cited, the proper procedure is to mark them with the tag, rather than to immediately delete them.

I personally do not like the article and its tone, but it is an opinion piece.

As I have stated numerous times before, I fail to see the relevance of that fact. Is it okay to blatantly lie, as long as it is done in an "opinion piece"?

As a member of the BSA, I have my own agenda, as does any editor.

Do you feel any responsibility to demand the BSA take the article off their website and take disciplinary action against Mark Pulliam?

I strive to be both friendly and honest, but I refuse to be bullied and I refuse to accept the impure logic presented in defense of the statements in question.

It's rather hypocritical for you people to gang up on me and then accuse me of "bullying" you, and to refuse to respond to my arguments, then accuse me of using "impure" logic. You have allowed your opposition to my statements to turn into personal animus against me, and if you truly strive to be "friendly and honest", you have failed.

Response to Rlevse
The basic problem as I see it is that Heqwm's edits are very POV as one can easily see what his opinion is (a NPOV edit wouldn't do that)

I have already responded to that argument. Furthermore, I that is your issue, why not edit them so that the opinion is not obvious, rather than outright deleting them?

His edit of 02:04 on Oct 9, 2006 to Boy Scouts of America is not only misleading and interpretive of what is in the refs, but even libelous and could get Wikipedia sued, towit: "almost entirely of false statements and vicious attacks on those that don't agree with the BSA".

This statement of is a blatant violation of civility, as you are not only accusing me of lying, but also doing something else which I am apparently not allowed to mention, as pointing out when someone does it is itself considered a violation. My claim is absolutely true, and the idea that it is libelous is absurd, and indicative of a deeply biased point of view, to the point that your mind completely refuses to accept any facts contrary to yourt worldview.

The ref by Cline is in the same vein (if Pulliam is being vicious, Cline is being vicious) but the opposite viewpoint yet Heqwm fails to mention its nature.

It is absurd to compare Pulliam to Cline. Cline is outraged by dishonesty. Pulliam is outraged that there people not willing to cater to his every whim. Besides which, this is not an article about Cline.

Response to NThurston
There has been ample discussion of these actions on the various talk pages above, with discussion about how and when this claim could conceivably be added to an encyclopedia article.

There has been virtually no effort by other editors to bring my edits into line with WP quidelines, rather than simply delete them.

However, Heqwm's reaction to these actions is to engage in name-calling, personal attacks, and to simply re-insert the text in basically the same format either in the same place or somewhere else.

That is simply false.

Requests for citations have been basically ignored other than to provide an occasional link to a web-site that does not in fact contain the information the Heqwm claims it does.

Again, false. It is notable that of the four people involved that have chosen to respond, every single one of them have made statements at variance with the facts.

I also agree that many of Heqwm's statements are blatantly libelous and potentially damaging to the Wikipedia.

Then you, too, are hopelessly biased.

''Heqwm's claims that the BSA has "published a libelous and vitriolic article" is patently false. Inline inclusion or citation of an already published article cannot be construed in this manner.''

What do you mean by that?


 * I mean that even if an article is deemed to be libelous, BSAlegal would not be responsible as a "publisher" for including it inline. For example, If the New York Times publishes a controversial article or essay, and I mirror it on my web site, I do not inherit the responsibility of libel, if it is clear that I am mirroring a third-party publication.  The assertion of libel would be against the publisher (The New York Times) and would not be transferred to me by my inclusion on a web site, unless I knew that it had been determined to be libelous and/or I violated court instruction to remove it.  In short, inline inclusion or "mirroring" an article is not the same as "publishing."  --NThurston 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of all the things that one would write about the BSA in an encyclopedia article, it hardly seems notable that they have included a particular op-ed piece on one web-site in the absence of some external reason why this would be notable.

It is not at all notable that the BSA claims to be "trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent" yet is deliberately participating in a smear campaign to incite hatred against atheists, gays, liberals, the ACLU, etc. through blatant lies?

In my opinion, Heqwm is not interested in writing an encyclopedia, but is trying to use Wikipedia to promote hatred of the BSA's leaders and their policies.

I do not see those as being in opposition. My intent is to more fully inform people of the BSA's activities. If doing so would promote hatred of the BSA, that reflects on them, not me.

This hatred has spilled over to be directed towards the editors listed above.

By not only refusing to allow mention of the BSA's actions, but going so far as to make excuses for those actions, the other editors are exhibiting hatred of me. Anyone who denies that it's wrong to lie about athiests is promoting bigotry against atheists, and therefore is violating WP policies.

Heqwm has not make a good faith attempt to contribute appropriate material, even though there is a very accessible place (controversies article) and method (appropriately sourced references) for doing so

When I put it in the other article, it was deleted. When I added citations, it was still deleted. Pretext after pretext was given, and each time I addressed one, another one appeared. So don't accuse me of not acting in good faith.

For the Record - Heqwm's Citations Listed
For ease of reference, here are the citations that Heqwm has used in the two articles in question:
 * Reprint of article appearing in The Humanist, vol. 55., no. 5, Sept.-Oct., 1995, pp. 6-13. Copyright © 1995 by Larry A. Taylor.
 * Membership Controversies page
 * BSA article referencing claims made in the Dale case.


 * BSA Legal inclusion of Pulliam article
 * Reference showing that BSA Legal contains an inline reference to the Pulliam article.
 * Membership controversies articles - BSA advocates will contest claims of their being a religious organization


 * About.com Editorial, Austin Cline, May 4, 2004
 * Reference showing that at least one person called Pulliam a liar.
 * Membership controversies article - BSA claims religious privileges

Discussion II
Heqwm, as the person that requested this mediation, I feel that you have the privilege of speaking in this more "official" discussion first. Note to other editors: please do not respond here yet. Thank you.

Heqwm, I ask that you expound on the following things you mentioned at the beginning of this mediation.


 * "I wish to include in the BSA article the facts that: They claimed to be a religious organization They later claimed not to be They published a libelous and vitriolic article"

How would you prefer these issues be integrated into the article?

Please also do the following:
 * 1) List a reliable source that explains under what circumstances "They claimed to be a religious organization"
 * 2) Please explain how the Pulliam article meshes in with your goals for this article
 * 3) Read WP:LEAD (it is short, don't worry) :) After that, tell me in what section you want to add your material.
 * 4) Explain this edit and how it is tied into concerns raised at this mediation.
 * 5) Give links to any sources you would like to use. For each one, please summarize (in a sentence or two) what about it you want mentioned in the article.

Lastly, I ask that you explain the concerns of others in your own words, and then tell me what your take is on these concerns. Hopefully this will get everybody thinking about both sides of the issue.

If need be, feel free to ask me about any policies or guidelines that may apply to this situation. Markovich292 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm, you may have useful things to add to the article, but you need to address the questions here to make sure your edits are acceptable to others and in accordance with policy. Let me reiterate that your probation does not extend to this mediation page, so you are free to comment. Markovich292 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Heqwm no longer available and/or not interested in completing this mediation. I will not close the case yet, just in case he has been prevented from editing recently for some strange reason.

I don't believe that anybody else involved in this case has a problem with the content of the article, but if I am wrong about this I am open to your comments/concerns at this time. Thank you. Markovich292 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for flaking out on these proceedings. I realize that it was rude, but after months of being bullied, I was emotionally exhausted. While I would understand if you don’t want to continue, I’m interested in resuming the proceedings. Whatever the status here, I don’t intend to halt editing pending the resolution of these issues (especially since no one else appears to have any such intention).

"How would you prefer these issues be integrated into the article?" I believe that I have expressed my prefences through my edits.

"List a reliable source that explains under what circumstances "They claimed to be a religious organization"" Again, I believe that my edits have done so.

"Please explain how the Pulliam article meshes in with your goals for this article" The Pulliam article, and the indifference to, if not outright support of, the dishonesty in the article, within the BSA, points to a deapseated contempt for the truth on the part of the BSA.

"Read WP:LEAD (it is short, don't worry) :) After that, tell me in what section you want to add your material." And, addressed by my edits.

"Explain this edit and how it is tied into concerns raised at this mediation." The deleted material is clearly motivated through a desire to agrrandize the BSA with subjective flattery. It violates the NPOV policy.

"Give links to any sources you would like to use. For each one, please summarize (in a sentence or two) what about it you want mentioned in the article." Yet again, this is answered in my edits.

"Lastly, I ask that you explain the concerns of others in your own words, and then tell me what your take is on these concerns." It's hard to tell. I can't dismiss the possibility that that a few are honestly concerned about my partiality, but the rampant dishonesty displayed precludes the idea that, for the majority, the latter is anything but a pretext. Clearly, there is a large contingent of editors who simply opposed to the dissemination of any information critical of the BSA. Heqwm 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)