Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Case Opened on 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * [Involvement ambiguous - Asmodeus 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)]
 * added per Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL Thatcher131 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [Involvement ambiguous - Asmodeus 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)]
 * added per Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL Thatcher131 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * added per Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL Thatcher131 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * added per Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL Thatcher131 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been made aware of this request through a notice on his talk page. [0; 1]

Statement by Asmodeus
Attempts to resolve the dispute were made on ScienceApologist's talk page. [2,3,4] When, against the advice of an administrator [5] he refused my request 6, I posted a notice to WP:PAIN and WP:ANI. [7,8] Administrators Shell Kinney, Daniel Bryant, and Thatcher131 all recommended arbitration. [9,10,11] It should also be noted that when ArbCom member Fred Bauder was queried on whether these issues would be addressed in the nearly-complete "Pseudoscience" RfAr, he responded negatively; hence, they would seem to require a new RfAr.

ScienceApologist's problematic behavior in this case, which goes back several months, largely mirrors that of two other now-departed users, Byrgenwulf and Hillman/CH, both of whom openly engaged in harassment against me and another user. Although dispute resolution was initiated in those cases, the users in question left before anything could be resolved. ScienceApologist is well aware of those efforts and has had ample opportunity to ameliorate his own behavior. That he has not done so, and shows no desire to do so, implies that nothing short of arbitration will permit a resolution. Furthermore, it is not fair to prolong his current violation of WP:HARASS at my expense.

Summary

ScienceApologist is speculating on my personal identity in violation of WP:HARASS, particularly regarding the posting of personal information. [12] In addition, ScienceApologist has a history of disruptive behavior with respect to the work and biography of Christopher Michael Langan [13,14], whom he has publicly accused me of being in real life. In the context of this accusation, ScienceApologist has serially violated WP:NPA, WP:LIVING, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPOV while falsely accusing me of violating WP:AUTO (as loyally seconded by some of his allies). In fact, I have edited the Langan bio just twice, once to correct a misspelling and once to remove irrelevant information posted by ScienceApologist.

Divulging personal information on Asmodeus

ScienceApologist has publicly speculated on and attempted to reveal my personal identity, and when asked to desist, claimed that since my identity is relevant to possible violations of WP:AUTO, he was within his rights. However, the personal identity of any particular Wikipedian is off the table, the sole exception being somebody with a verified history of non-NPOV edits to Wikipedia articles. I have no such history, and have thus violated neither AUTO nor COI. Hence, my personal identity is not a legitimate issue, and speculations and accusations regarding it violate WP:HARASS and WP:NPA.

Such behavior is all the more reprehensible when it threatens to expose a user to attack and/or harassment on philosophical grounds. I have been subject to attack by ID critics at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist has been at pains to falsely portray a certain bio subject as an ID theorist, and his theory as a strain of ID theory, repeatedly inserting extraneous information on a certain affiliation into this person's biography for that purpose and ultimately accusing me of being that person IRL. Obviously, ScienceApologist has no business exposing me, or the bio subject in question, to harassment or other abuse, or using Wikipedia to focus undesired attention upon us.

Improperly editing Christopher Michael Langan

ScienceApologist has an ongoing history of disruptive editing behavior with respect to the biography of Christopher Michael Langan. [18,19] WP:NPA specifies that personal attacks include "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" (see the fourth bullet here). That this is ScienceApologist's purpose is clearly implied not only by his well-established negative attitude toward Langan and his work, but by his insistence on inserting and reinserting this particular piece of information into Langan's biography, to which it is extraneous and where it does not in fact belong.

That is, while it is acceptable to report on a biography subject's affiliations, specific information on any affiliated group or organization is either irrelevant, or relevant only insofar as it might influence the perception of the subject and/or his or her ideas. If irrelevant, then it does not belong in the article; if relevant, then it is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, and again does not belong in the article. Because ScienceApologist is clearly attempting to expose Mr. Langan to opprobrium through one of his affiliations, this is also in violation of WP:LIVING.

Improperly editing the CTMU article

ScienceApologist disruptively edited the CTMU article when it existed. See this evidence in the "Pseudoscience" RfAr, which contains a helpful narrative and numerous supporting diffs. After encountering editorial resistance to his sweeping changes, he participated in its deletion, which was sought on the alleged grounds that it and its topic were "pseudoscience". In fact, the article and its topic were explicitly classified as philosophy. [For a concise account of the entire CTMU affair, see my response to this bogus RfC filed in retaliation to my request that another user desist in his personal attacks. Also see the outside view of Tim Smith, who authored the CTMU article (and did a clear and accurate job of it).]

I've shortened this statement by administrative request. Unfortunately, the links may no longer be numbered correctly, and I don't have time to change them right now. I'll make corrections and additions as time permits. Meanwhile, the previous version of my statement, and its missing links, remain in the page history. Thank you, Asmodeus 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist
I don't think this rises to an arbcom case. The consensus of those people, including a number of administrators, who have looked at the conflict seems to be that the content of the question (or at the very least, the issue raised by it) is perfectly legitimate with an eye toward WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The other complaints are regard content disputes over Christopher Michael Langan and the (now deleted) CTMU proposal, so are not actionable issues for arbcom either. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by somewhat involved Art LaPella
I don't know why an editor as confrontational as Asmodeus (see User:Byrgenwulf) wants to talk about WP:NPA. For instance, search for the word "rabid" here, which he used to describe a successful Articles for Deletion process. Art LaPella 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by somewhat involved JBKramer
WP:SPADE. More to come. JBKramer 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user who makes this and this edit, and attacks someone who removes them for pushing POV is not necessary to have editing here in the absence of valuable contributions elsewhere. JBKramer 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by somewhat involved user Prosfilaes
I have been labeled as one of ScienceApologist's allies by Asmodeus (and note the justification in the last that freaks is rude but "hyperorthodox control freaks" is just fine) and have had run-ins with him where he accused me of WP:HARASS  and bizarrely enough WP:COI, so I'm at least somewhat involved. He tends to view fellow editors as groups; note where he attacks me and my knowledge of pseudoscience, despite the fact that I haven't written on Wikipedia about pseudoscience in the last year, and  where he complains about "a dedicated, broad-ranging cabal whose members and sympathizers have become so entrenched in the power structure that they need no longer bother to justify their moblike behavior." He's elitist (a theory is notable for being "authored by somebody reputed to be among the world's most intelligent people"; gets terribly upset when I point out that just IQ is worth little, but is more than willing to denigrate the value of work;Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence covers his general contempt for academia). Talk:Academic elitism shows repeated examples of talking down to me (repeated "Do you understand?") as well as trying to make it personal while I was trying my best to keep it non-personal, and use of orders instead of trying to discuss the issue. falls in here somewhere, with his accusation that CTMU was "deleted [because of] your clear resentment of the well-verified fact that its author's intelligence quotient threatens to make those of certain others around here look relatively unremarkable." He frequently accuses people of being ignorant ("ignorance...outside the walls of their mental boxes" "Sadly, the proprietor of crank.net is making definite accusations regarding various people and ideas, some of them clearly over his head. Obviously, Wikipedia is not in the business of condoning ignorance, prejudice, or unkind behavior." Irony much?

Asmodeus may or may not be Lagan, but the fact that he obsesses over the AfD of Lagan's theory, the CTMU, over Lagan's bio, and over the value of intelligence and the lack of value of a college education seems to make him a meatpuppet. (I can't honestly say that I've looked through his contribs in depth, so it's possible this is only a pattern of recent days.) I honestly don't see the problem with SA's edits to Lagan's bio that Asmodeus cites; Lagan is a fan of ID, as shown by the fact he's a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design and he's published in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. SA merely replaced, or added to, a meaningless statement of goals a mention of what ISCID is about, which is helpful to the reader. Whatever SA's intent on that, merely stating this clearly true fact is not a violation of WP:NPA.

For the hopeful edification of readers, Edit summary (and why do you have such an interest?) seems to be the first time that ScienceApologist questioned whether Lagan and Asmodeus was the same person. I don't know what it means for this context, but hopefully it will be useful...

Full disclosure: I haven't been perfect in these arguments. At the start of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence, I was merely trying to calm things down; near the end of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence I was enjoying a good old debate. In Talk:Academic elitism, there's one edit, promptly deleted by me, where I responded uncivilly to his incivilities.--Prosfilaes 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DrL
I've just been listed as an "involved party" in this RfAr. The reason seems to be that anti-ID Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk, in yet another glaring violation of WP:HARASS, attempted to access deleted material purporting to reveal personal information about me. The material in question, whose author (Hillman/CH) quietly departed after engaging in a protracted campaign of harassment against me and another user (Asmodeus), not only runs afoul of anti-harassment guidelines, but violates WP:NPA by falsely accusing me of "editing disruptively" on articles relating to Christopher Michael Langan and the CTMU. In fact, the biography of Christopher Michael Langan is currently being disruptively edited by a number of people including FeloniousMonk and Science Apologist, forcing me to step in to maintain neutrality (for example, see my explanation here). My article edits have always have been as factual as I could make them, and strictly consistent with WP:NPOV. I'll probably be coming back and adding to this statement as the situation progresses and time allows. Thank you. --DrL 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

 * Accept. But I would support folding this into the Pseudoscience case. Charles Matthews 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is convoluted and unwieldy already. I think we'll get some useful rulings out of it, but I actually think it would be a good idea to spin this off of it for the sake of coherence. Dmcdevit·t 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. - SimonP 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge
1) Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable established knowledge found in reliable sources. Unpublished or self-published information is generally unsuitable for inclusion.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption
2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles may be banned from them, in extreme cases from the site.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography and Conflict of Interest
3) A user who apparently disrupts editing of the article on themselves and their areas of interest may be restricted in their editing. It is not necessary that a definite identification be made; only that the user engages in such a pattern of editing.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No original research
4) Information which has not been published in a reliable source may not be included, see No original research. It is not acceptable whether the user attempting to insert original research is the author or a third party.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Patience
5) Enthusiastic but inexperienced users frequently commit gaffes such as intensively editing subjects they are involved with such as the article on themselves or their own research. However, if patiently corrected, many go on to become valued contributors.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack accounts
6) Accounts created and used only for the purpose of attacking the subject of an article and their work may be indefinitely banned.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected autobiographers
7) The appropriate place to bring attention to and discuss users who are suspected of editing articles about themselves or their activities is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This may also occur on the talk pages of affected articles. There are circumstances where editing by such persons is appropriate, particularly on the talk page of articles about themselves. It is inappropriate to harass suspects by repeatedly accusing them in inappropriate ways or by reverting all their edits. Only if, after explanation and referral to Autobiography and Conflict of interest, they continue to engage in inappropriate editing, should their editing be restricted. If all else fails, the dispute resolution procedure should be used.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators
8) Wikipedia administrators are expected to consult with other administrators, especially before reversing their actions, and to avoid use of their tools in situations in which they are involved, see Blocking_policy.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
2) had a request for comment filed against him/her (see here), with concerns about WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVILITY.


 * Passed 5 to 1 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus is an aggressive and tendentious editor
3) Many of Asmodeus' edits are tendentious and with aggressive edit summaries (e.g., ). He also introduces special pleading in support of fringe subjects (e.g. ).  The degree of disruption he has caused is surprising given his limited mainspace edit history.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus is uncivil
4) Many of Asmodeus' talk page comments and edit summaries are uncivil, attacking those attempting to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus' editing style
5) Asmodeus' editing style of Langan-related articles is characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits promoting/inflating Langan's viewpoints over those of mainstream science:


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discourtesy by Asmodeus
6) has been discourteous


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research by Asmodeus
7) Asmodeus has engaged in original research.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus area of editing
8) has in his editing concentrated on the set of subjects associated with Christopher Michael Langan, an independent scholar noted for original research. In this context "original research" means advancement of original ideas outside traditional academic venues such as Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe, see Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DrL
9) edits articles related to Christopher Michael Langan in a disruptive way Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hal Fisher
10)  and   are accounts which are mainly devoted to opposition to Christopher Michael Langan and Asmodeus who they identify as being him, often posting comments to that effect. example of a nasty edit


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk
11) had been blocked for harassing Asmodeus by  . When  appeared on November 27 and engaged in the same activity he was warned by Cowman109 .  responded to this warning with a post characterizing Cowman109's warning as harassment, stating, "Hal is doing just fine as far as I have seen." He then unblocked Haldane Fisher.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's suspicions
12) On November 9, 2006 ScienceApologist began to suspect that Asmodeus was Christopher Michael Langan. He posted to Wikipedia talk:Autobiography requesting advice  and left a polite note on User talk:Asmodeus ]. When Asmodeus responded aggressively , he voiced his suspicions in an aggressive way.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Asmodeus banned
1) Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus placed on Probation
2) Asmodeus is placed on probation indefinitely. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus cautioned
3) Asmodeus is cautioned to be courteous to other users.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DrL
4) All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk counseled
5.1) FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher banned
6) Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist counseled
7) ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Many users err, but eventually become valued contributors.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 20:50, 22 March 2007 FeloniousMonk blocked with an expiry time of 48 hours; 24 hrs for walking in the footsteps of DrL, Asmodeus, and 24 hrs for personal attacks and disruption. FeloniousMonk 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)