Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training/Statements

Statements
Please give a short summary of your position on this matter, and what you would like to see happen. Dont forget to sign, espically in the 3rd parties section. Under no circumstances edit another party's comments. RogueNinja talk  21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Smee
There are a few things that I wish to get out of this mediation: This disruptive and hurtful behaviour should not be tolerated on the project. Smee 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Lsi john's actions, and Mediation wishes
 * 1) User:Lsi john continually violations the tenet of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on articles edit histories and talk pages, by making hurtful allegations regarding other editors' behaviour. This should stop.
 * 2) User:Lsi john continuously removes material that has been meticulously sourced to multiple highly reputable material from secondary sourced reputable citations.
 * 3) User:Lsi john adds in his own statements and opinion into articles, without backing up these opinions with any reputable secondary sourced citations, thus violating WP:No Original Research. User:Lsi john then claims on the talk page that since his opinion is correct somehow, it should remain in the article.

Smee 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Clarification of reputable academic use of "LGAT"
 * 1) Please see Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training, for more information on the reputable sources that use the term Large Group Awareness Training.
 * 2) The term was actually first defined by psychologists and psychiatrists, and remains in use by them to this day, in psychology textbooks, such as most notably, a textbook entitled INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY.
 * 3) If you will check the citations and points made at Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training, you will note that my assertions regarding the term are correct, and that User:Lsi john's claims of "anti-cult" are wholly incorrect, not to mention false allegations which are not backed up by any citations from reputable secondary sources, just User:Lsi john's own opinions. Internet message boards do not satisfy WP:RS, and thus have no place as citations.
 * 4) As User:Lsi john's bias and POV opinions regarding Large Group Awareness Training, and the use of the term itself, even in the face of numerous citations from highly reputable secondary sources remains unchanged, I find it very unlikely he will every be satisfied with articles regarding these groups on the project - so long as we keep the adherence to the WP:RS reputable sources such as pscyhology textbooks and academic journals that discuss them.

Statement by lsi john
Unfortunately (in my opinion) this mediation will require the arbitrator to be somewhat familiar with the LGAT subject matter, in order to fully understand the vast scope of the problem/issue.
 * Added later: I see now the word 'short' in the request. Unfortunately this is not a 'short' problem and requires detailed knowledge to understand (or at least I feel it does, hence my verbose description). Lsi john 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going on faith that you want my 'view' of what is going on and what the problem is and that you want me to be candid and I will remain respectful and WP:CIVIL at all times.

If this is not what you want then I respectfully request that my reply be deleted, as the other editor routinely cites NPA when anyone mentions or challenges her edits or pattern of edits. (This is also one of my issues here, the fact that she repeatedly makes false charges and repeats them often enough in an apparent effort to make them appear real and well founded).

In fairness to the other editor in this mediation, I do not believe she is maliciously or intentionally vandalizing wiki. I believe she feels, in her heart, that she is doing a service to the world by posting as many articles about LGAT as she can.

However, the other editor appears, based on edit history and article involvement, to be on a mission to add LGAT tags to everything possible. Articles, which do not even mention LGAT, are 'tagged' as being in the LGAT category and articles about companies, with no real wiki value, appear and are quickly filled with LGAT propaganda.

As I understand now, this would be WP:SPA. Lsi john 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Background:


 * Technically LGAT is POV. It has no scientific or specific definition. It is defined by each author, either directly or by-example, or by referencing another author's work-product.


 * LGAT is a pejorative term, used mainly by the anti-cult community (for examples see http://forum.rickross.com currently offline/broken). To my knowledge, all of the major references/citations used to justify labeling organizations, were written by members of the anti-cult community; and the origins of the term go back to two notable anti-cult activists.


 * The forum.rickross.com is relevant here, as the other editor has (more than once) cited it as either factual data, or listed it as SEE ALSO or External References. When it is removed from one article, for not being WP:RS, the other editor requires (based on historical evidence) that any other citations to rickross.com be found/located/removed by someone else, even if she is actively working on an article which contains such a citation. When pressed, she will do things like move the citation to the See Also section where it is, presumably, exempt from WP:RS rules. Yet, if someone uses the same website as a reference to anti-cult, she immediately deletes the reference as violation of WP:RS.


 * Also, because the term LGAT was invented by the anti-cult community, there is little, if any, published material which declares the term LGAT to be what it actually is - a pejorative label. In its origins, it was used as a pseudonym for cult and lawsuits were filed against an author for not keeping adequate distance between the two terms. This fact is then used to prevent anyone from inserting anything about the anti-cult community, which invented the term, into any articles.... thus making the articles naturally biased and unbalanced. Basically, the only people using the term to any real degree, are the ones who use it to attack the credibility of targeted organizations. (While some of these organizations may deserve to be attacked, it is an attack none the less).


 * Because there is no scientific standard to apply, it is not possible to make a claim on wiki that a company 'is' or 'is not' an LGAT organization. The most that can be done is to say a company was 'called' an LGAT by one author or another. Yet the other editor routinely makes unfounded statements of 'fact' that an organization 'IS' an lgat and quickly reverts edits which provide technical accuracy to the articles. e.g. XYZ 'is' LGAT -> changed to "in his book, mr abc cited XYZ as an LGAT. -> immediately reverted to original text: XYZ 'is' LGAT. Attempts in talk to stop these reverts are generally ignored. Only when third parties or senior editors give an opinion, or make an edit, or when 2 of the 3RR's are used, does it seem that the other editor will allow an unwanted change to stay.

The other editor routinely injects/pushes POV related to LGAT into articles and, in the process, leads the reader in a desired direction, often without regard to TALK page discussions. The POV is not always strictly a violation wp:pov, but is often simply pushing a pov by adding misleading words like "often", "many" or over-valuing a citation by listing academic credentials or citing an award given to a book or project being referenced. Any attempt, by other contributors, to make similar edits, with opposing viewpoints, are summarily deleted as bias and against wiki-rules.


 * In one case, where I put an 'unbalanced' opinion tag on an article, the other editor demanded that I either give citations or she would remove the opinion tag. The opinion tag itself states that citations are needed to balance the article and requests the wiki community to help find them. If citations were available, then the tag would have been unnecessary. However, because I was not able to produce citations, she reverted the tag, twice. Only when she was stopped by the 3RR rule did she decide to leave the tag in place. One minute she made a promise on an editor's page to stop, and at the same time, she reverted another similar tag edit on another article, which I had done.

This, is a pattern I have seen her use with other editors as well. She seems to push the rules right up to the line, repeatedly, and it gets tiring. Decisions received about one article or situation do not seem to apply to other articles or situations and she passively requires the other editors to contest the same thing (or same types of things) over and over in subsequent articles.

There is a body of evidence which supports the observation that when someone else makes an edit, which is counter to her pov
 * The edit is deleted due to a strict interpretation of a wiki-rule.


 * The edit is removed, among a series of other edits, thus not qualifying as a revert.


 * The paragraph or section, which was edited, gets rewritten and the added text dropped or or the removed text is re-inserted in another (potentially unacceptable) fashion, thus requiring another round of edits; forcing other editors to start over.
 * In one case, while a discussion was underway about an article, she disregarded the discussion and re-wrote the entire top 1/3 of the article. (Her edits were subsequently reverted and she then joined the talk).

Entire articles about companies or organizations are created, solely for the purpose of attaching an LGAT label to them.


 * I believe it is fair to use the word 'solely', because after 3 months, these articles had virtually nothing in them execpt the LGAT language.

On at least two such occasions (the deleted articles above) there are no WP:RS which support the LGAT claims against the two organizations, which were inserted/edited/permitted by the other editor in this dispute. LGAT gets tagged onto other articles, as well, where nothing in the article reference/cites or uses the terminology LGAT.

Opening statements are filled with bias and weighted terms, seemingly intended to lead the reader to a desired conclusion. The conclusion, when the entire body of edits is viewed, is that LGAT is bad and any company tagged as LGAT is bad. Very little exists in any of the related articles which reflects anything positive about these companies. And when something positive is inserted, very little of that is permitted to remain.

This history establishes a pattern of behavior, where wiki rules are used when convenient and disregarded unless enforced by someone else.

It is this pattern of behavior and misuse of wiki rules in order to publish POV articles which is the core of this dispute (even if referencing published sources, they are not always reliable and do not accurately or fairly or evenly reflect the facts).

Lsi john 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even in this mediation, when I civilly and factually stated my view of whats going on, she declares WP:NPA. If it is, in fact, WP:NPA, surely the mediator could reach that conclusion on his/her own? Declaring WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL seem to be a reflex when any question of edit history or behavior is raised by any other contributor. Lsi john 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Desired outcome
 * I would like to see the other editor stop using wiki to defame companies and organizations.


 * I would like to see her agree to strictly follow the 'spirit' of the 3RR rule and not continue to push it to the limits.


 * I would like to see her 'play nice' (talk before revert) before a senior editor or third party are forced to get involved.


 * I would like to see her agree to apply the outcome of past, present and future disputes across the board and to stop doing battle with so many different contributors.


 * I would like to see her agree to stop inserting pov words like Many and highly into her articles unless the actual source used those words.


 * I would like her to agree to stop using WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in her replies to me and other editors. If she believes that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are being violated I would like her to agree here to file cases against those editors and stop simply claiming violations in her posts.


 * I would like her to acknowledge the portions of this which see understands and which she accepts.


 * I would like her to agree to not revert any edit which is tagged with a reason, until she first goes to talk and engages in a discussion and a consensus is reached. Obviously, vandalism would be an exception to this agreement. I would like her to give a minimum of 48 hours for other editors to respond before she reverts back to her desired text.

I am confident that Smee can set aside her personal views on the subject and work with other contributors to develop unbiased and fair articles which do not lead the reader to any conclusions.

I am confident that Smee has much to offer and I can see that she is a consummate researcher.

I would like to see her put those skills to use to research both 'sides' of an issue and to begin writing balanced articles instead of forcing other editors to write any opposing views and putting hurdles and roadblocks in their way.

I believe that Smee brings value to wiki and that her personal views can help keep the articles from going to the other extreme and painting a rosey picture about abusive or illegal companies. I would like to see her promise to cooperate and work with talk to discuss things and promise to get a consensus from other contributors who are working on the article.

I would like Smee to agree to use talk before she reverts a documented edit by another contributor. If a consensus cannot be reached between the involved parties, I would like her to agree to use third-party mediation before she reverts text which has been objected to by other contributors.

I would her to agree to apply these promises to all of her edits with all other contributors, and not be strictly applied to these specific articles and specifically only with me.

Lsi john 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

'''I believe an ideal outcome would be a third-party editor, not involved with the subject matter to be involved in the entire sequence of articles involving LGAT. I would like Smee to agree to third-party mediation for the entire series of articles and further to agree to abide by the mediator's decisions, both in fact and in spirit.''' Lsi john 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading her statement above, notice she uses the term 'highly reputable sources', but as far as I know, wiki only uses the term 'reputable' sources. This is a pattern where she overemphasizes things to lead the reader to the conclusion she wants them to reach. In this case, since her sources were highly reputable the implied, and obvious, conclusion is that they must have belonged in the article. She ignores the fact that reputable does not mean relevant or appropriate.
 * Smee's methods

Wiki policy says "assume good faith", yet Smee says (above)
 * "I find it very unlikely he will every be satisfied with articles regarding these groups on the project --smee"

Is this a sign of good faith? To me it is an example of simply dismissing another contributor and going on to do what she wants. She makes no effort to explain why she feels certain material should be included, and thus a dispute in talk can never be reached, and thus third-opinions cannot be called for, because no discussion exists for them to evaluate.

She claims that I remove material that has been meticulously sourced to multiple highly reputable material from secondary sourced reputable citations.
 * First, that is another example of her attempts to over-value 'cited reputable sources' by adding non-wiki adjectives like highly and inserting words like meticulously. I would hope that all material was meticulously researched in order that the article be accurate. Why is it necessary to use so many extra words to say the material was cited WP:RS, if not to bias the statement and lead the reader? This is an excellent example of how she biases the article leads as well. She adds redundant, superfluous and suggestive material to leads, which more appropriately belongs inside the article. Another senior editor said an article lead should not leave the reader with any indication about how the editor felt. The reader should come to his own conclusions and not be assisted by the article content. Yet Smee continues to insert material which leads her readers both:
 * to the conclusion she appears to want them to reach and
 * to other articles which will assit them to reach the conclusion she appears to want them to reach.


 * One fundamental problem with her 'leads' and verbage, is that an uninformed reader will not even realize that he is being led. Because Smee refuses to allow opposing views into the article. She has proclaimed herself a meticulous researcher, yet she refuses to assist with any research that sheds any negative light on the LGAT label or good light on any company which has been branded LGAT. And, at the same time, she strictly enforces the WP rules to prevent any efforts by other contributors to unbias or un-slant the articles.


 * Second, I do not remove relevant cited material. I do remove material which is not directly relevant or germain to an article. I also participate in TALK about these edits and provide reasons for them. Her participation is generally limited to REVERT and don't remove my cited highly reputable referenced highly reputable sources.

She routinely claims that numerous contributors are violating WP:NPA. One senior editor has remarked simply claiming WP:NPA does not make it true. I am not attacking her. I do not make personal comments, I do not make sarcastic comments. I comment on her edits and on occasion I make reference to her edit-patterns. One, two, three edits are not necessarily a pattern, but when dozens of the same style of edits are made, a pattern emerges. Such patterns are relevant and are not WP:NPA simply because she claims it is.

I am not attacking her character, I am not attacking her at all. I am citing factual data and edit history.

In my opinion, her repeated claims of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL because it leaves trails of accusations without merit and without conviction. If all the people she says attack her with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were truly guilty, why doesn't she file cases against them instead of constantly posting the claim WP:NPA in all her responses?

She claims that I make hurtful allegations. This is unfounded and untrue. I do make accurate observations about edits and edit patterns. I do not make it a personal attack. I do not call her names. I do not make sarcastic or derrogatory and unproductive comments. I am not violating WP:CIVIL and I am not violating WP:NPA.

I make the claim that her edit-pattern behavior should stop. She makes the claim that my disruptive behavior should stop. Saying my behavior is Disruptive is a direct attack on me. Who is violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL there?

Lsi john 15:11, 18 April 2007

'''I believe an ideal outcome would be a third-party editor, not involved with the subject matter to be involved in the entire sequence of articles involving LGAT. I would like Smee to agree to third-party mediation for the entire series of articles and further to agree to abide by the mediator's decisions, both in fact and in spirit.''' Lsi john 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd parties
I've known Smee long enough to believe what she says outright. However not all editors have had experience with her, so for them here are four diffs to back up some of Smee's points:
 * Removal of cited material diff 1 and diff 2


 * Edit summary:diff 1 and diff 2

Thank you, Anynobody 09:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)