Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision

Editing on David S. Touretzky
Note that AI has not only attempted to include disparaging material in the article itself, there is also AI's user subpage User:AI/Touretzky quotes with potentially libelous "quotes" attributed to David S. Touretzky. The quotes were rejected from the article namespace, and I find their continued existence in user space highly problematic. --MarkSweep 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume MarkSweep is not a lawyer. Regardless, he is employing his own original research to claim the Touretzky quotes are "potentially libelous." MarkSweep tried to VfD my Touretzky quote page and the VfD was strongly opposed by almost everyone who voted.--AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep's involvement in the David Touretzky article is problematic. His only involvement apparently was to "police" my contribution. He did not significantly contribute until after I questioned his contribution. --AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
I think AI has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a curious letter-of-the-law fashion (mixed with his own interpretation). We should therefore make sure that the proposed remedy and enforcement are unambiguously clear. At the moment, it's not fully clear to me (but that could just be me) whether AI would be allowed to do the following: Note that I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be allowed to do these things, just asking that they be addressed. Also, I don't want this to turn into open season for AI-baiting. --MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * remove/refactor/edit his own comments in a way that removes context for any responses to his comments that may already exist at the time of the refactoring;
 * remove other users's comments on his user talk page;
 * alter other user's comments when he copies them to their talk page as part of a reply.

MarkSweep's POV regarding personal attacks is not supported by consensus at WP_talk:NPA (or at any of the related policy/guideline discussion pages). As a new admin, he should be restricted from mediating any disputes involving personal attacks/comments. Furthermore, MarkSweep should be restricted from scrutinizing any user pages or talk pages especially when it comes to what he views as "defamatory" statements. --AI 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

AI prohibited from CoS articles
I think this is a very blunt instrument. Certainly an effective one, but I'm not sure it's the best remedy regarding the core goal of writing an encyclopedia. AI brings special expertise to the table, which would be welcome IF (big if) he could somehow learn to respect the opinions of other editors. Other users have shown great patience with him, trying to educate him on issues of NPOV, reliable sources, etc. AI needs to learn to take those people seriously, and not threaten, attack, manipulate, censor them, filibuster, etc. The whole thing about valuing the letter of policy more highly than the consensus opinions of his fellow editors has to stop. Wikipedia works by building consensus, not by outmaneuvering one's perceived opponents. If AI is prohibited from editing certain articles, but the above traits of his behavior are not addressed, it is possible that he may continue along the same lines on a different set of articles, or continue some of his tactics for taking over and directing the flow of conversations on CoS article talk pages (I'm assuming the proposed remedy would allow him to post comments on talk pages). --MarkSweep 06:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think MarkSweep has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a police-others fashion (probably hired by David Touretzky or other "notable" critic of Scientology). You should therefore make sure that the proposed remedies and enforcement also address MarkSweep. At the moment, it's clear to me that MarkSweep should be restricted from doing any of following: Note that I am saying he shouldn't be allowed to do these things, and that they be addressed. --AI 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Immediately assuming bad faith.
 * Using consensus to trump NPOV.
 * Restoring personal attacks which have been refactored.
 * Misrepresent those he opposes.
 * Interpreting policy for others.

General issues
I agree that there are a number of other problems, and I've outlined some on the evidence page. If you look at the recent history of, you'll see what's been going on. I don't know if it's Ok for the ArbCom to consider the whole situation beyond the specific complaint, or if it's Ok to amend the complaint at this point. As I see it, AI has a variety of tactics that he's employed so far. The proposed remedy would take away one of those, but the fundamental problem is that AI does not respect the collective opinions of other editors and will use any policy, guideline, reference to common practice, jargon, etc. to force his will (with no support and against the objections of others). That is a fundamental issue and is something that could be addressed without going beyond the scope of the original complaint. --MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One has the 'ability' to arbitrarily impose one's will on Wikipedia, but that does not grant one the 'right'. Multiple arbitrations may deprive one of said ability (see the Everyking decisions for a precedent), and I can't help but feel that it will take multiple arbitrations for the issues regarding this user to be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.20.121 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-03 18:54


 * You may be right about this. Still, the fundamental issues are already clear: AI is acting unilaterally against consensus. I'd very much like for this problem to be addressed now. The revert war on the talk page is just one symptom, and if the underlying problem isn't addressed, we may all find ourselves back here if and when other symptoms surface in the future. --MarkSweep 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, if you seek to correct an underlying problem then you may assist in developing Wikipedia policy by engaging in discussion there instead of targetting one user. This discussion is simply proof that you are targetting User:AI instead of actually seeking to correct underlying problems. --AI 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I see it, I am indeed addressing the underlying problem, which is very much about you and your attempts to subvert policies and to force your will onto the community over the objections of others. All of this is already covered by existing policies. --MarkSweep 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep reading, I was still composing my argument while you responded. --AI 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this diff it appears that AI expects that the Arbitrators will address the dispute over David S. Touretzky, and I agree with him that they should. The most recent issue is that AI keeps adding biased content to the article, despite the fact that the proposed additions were discussed and rejected on the talk page and that his attempts to add them have met with objections from at least three four different editors, with nobody voicing any support. --MarkSweep 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The content in question is not simply biased. It is a judges opinion which David Touretzky and his supporters seek to avoid. It has been properly attributed and is highly relevant to David Touretzky's claims to being an advocate of freedom of speech. The IRC quotes on RFW also demonstrate that David Touretzky does not understand freedom of speech. He has made bigoted statements and used his university facilities to do so. --AI 21:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also it needs to be pointed out here that the reverts were a result of refactoring of personal attacks/comments which were the result of contributors in disagreement about attribution and NPOV. Simply targetting AI with an arbitration is not going to solve this problem and demostrates that MarkSweep's intention in this case is not to solve "underlying" problems but to attack User:AI in defense of David Touretzky and his many many many supporters from alt.2600 who dominate major demographics of the internet. --AI 21:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep also adds biased content to articles, look at his most recent "contribution" to Tom Cruise. MarkSweeps view on contribution of bias is hypocritical. Arbitrators should address him in addition to User:AI if they are going to take up this issue at all. --AI 22:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On I merely reinserted a category that AI had previously removed for no good reason. All of this is based on verifiable facts and completely analogous to articles about other actors. --MarkSweep 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it seemed very POV to me. --AI 22:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing POV about it. Cruise was nominated for a Razzie. That's a verifiable fact, and it's clearly relevant. And if you think there is a problem, why didn't you remove the same category from Anthony Hopkins or Ralph Fiennes, to name just two examples? I'm not suggesting you remove those categories, on the contrary: don't. --MarkSweep 22:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * AI has edited a vast number of articles with minimal difficulty. Problems, however, do arise, and not infrequently (he has added NPOV material to many articles, most of which involve psychology (1), psychiatry (2), or neuroscience); these occurrences serve to discredit a user who could be of much service to the Wikipedia community - if he could only maintain NPOV on these specific issues. -- User:206.114.20.121 2005-08-05 14:24 MST


 * 206.114.20.121 (sdl.billheard.com), your claim that I seek to discredit a user with those 2 differences is based on what evidence? Please present more evidence. --AI 21:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * AI edits a vast number of articles with no difficulty at his own expense and to the benefit of Wikipedia and those demographics of society which reference Wikipedia. Problems will always probably always arise because of personal differences in knowledge, background and of course opinions about POV. I agree that my contribution of "He performed atrocities on the general public" was vague and that is why I did not dispute the sentence removal. I see nothing wrong particularly wrong with the second difference you present. I agreed that the article needed NPOV'ing and my contribution was not intentionally to violate NPOV. History proves that I have welcoming NPOV'ing and in some cases even assisted with the NPOV'ing process. --AI 21:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Viewed in the most general terms, what Scientology does is offer psychotherapy to its practitioners, in much the same way that Christian Science offers physical healing. By being a religion, they escape from and are able to operate free of the restrictions that may be imposed by the state. Anyone who has been around folks who need psychotherapy knows that things can go horribly wrong for a variety of reasons. What Touretzky does is exploit that vulnerability. His pointing to specific examples would support much more general conclusions than are justified by viewing isolated examples. I don't mean by this to say that the techniques used by Scientology are safe or effective or that a full disclosure is made to recruits. Fred Bauder 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred Bauder, I do not see why an arbitrator would even bring up such issues which are irrelevant to the dispute. But I do agree Touretzky does exploit that vulnerability and if it helps you to understand, Scientology does not "offer psychotherapy to its practitioners," Scientology offers auditing/processing to it's preclears. Scientology processing/auditing is entirely different from psychotherapy. --AI 21:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You lost me at "What Touretzky does". --MarkSweep 22:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He points at an example where things went horribly wrong and the scientology practitioners covered themselves with shame and offers up a conclusion that the whole thing is crap . It does not follow. The nightmares associated with state-regulated psychotherapy are no less horrible. I think a stronger case can be made that the state is incompetent and dangerous than can be made with respect to Scientology. Fred Bauder 22:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. I completely agree that horrible mistakes have been made by regulated therapists and/or by the state, e.g. related to involuntary commitment. But I don't want to argue any specifics regarding the content of the David S. Touretzky article (or any other article); all these issues can be worked out, provided the editors are generally working toward consensus. What I'm getting at here is that there is a fundamental problem, IMO, with AI's editing behavior, in that he fails to respect consensus and keeps doing things his way undeterred in light of vocal opposition from other editors.  That, and only that, was the purpose of my comments above. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Cheers, --MarkSweep 23:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Censensus does not trump NPOV. What you and the others are doing is exactly that. And meanwhile you raise RfA against me and dupe all the mediators into only seeing your side. And then all the critics of Scientology come to your support. It is very easy to prove that Wikipedia is inherently biased and the arbitrators here have proven they do not care but are more interested in the easy task of going along with the systemic bias. --AI 02:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This request for arbitration originated as a result of disputes between User:AI and several other regular contributors who constantly engaged in personal attacks. User:MarkSweep entered the scene and attempted to "mediate" by targetting User:AI with prejudice and generalization and without fully understanding all the facts regarding the involved users and the articles in question. This is an arbitration between User:MarkSweep and and User:AI, not an arbitration against User:AI. The arbitrators must also look at User:MarkSweep's actions instead of allowing the RfArb to become a "weapon" employed by MarkSweep against User:AI. --AI 13:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you suggest?
What would you suggest as a finding of fact (would be helpful if you accompanied your suggestions with cites of evidence) and what would you suggest as remedies? Fred Bauder 00:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed findings of fact, but would add something along the following lines. As a proposed principle: Wikipedia works by building consensus. As a proposed finding of fact: AI has edited without regard for consensus. This proposed finding of fact is already partly supported by two existing proposed findings, namely (3) and (4). I'll elaborate:


 * Regarding refactoring (3), AI removed NicholasTurnbull's comments a total of nine times over the objections of five different editors as detailed here. Three of these deletions occurred after he had already been temporarily blocked under the 3 Revert Rule (for reverts that deleted the same comments). He only stopped when he was close to violating 3RR a second time. The fact that he was being reverted and/or asked to stop by five different editors should have told him that he was going against the will of the community.
 * Regarding the edits to David S. Touretzky (4), the POV edits are only part of the problem. A single POV edit would not be a problem; the problem is that he kept adding biased quotes and/or summaries of the contents of those quotes repeatedly after their inclusion had already been discussed on Talk:David S. Touretzky) and rejected. His actions met with the objections of four different editors: Kelly Martin, MarkSweep, JesseW (see also here), and Povmec. Again, AI did not respect the readily apparent consensus of the community.
 * Third, in a recent close call, AI proposed the partial removal of another user's talk page comments: "I am going to remove this personal attack upon me. If anyone objects, state your opinion and reason why this statement should remain. Note: your opinion will be used as evidence in the my arbitration." (I don't find the veiled threat in this request acceptable. Moreover, I don't think the burden of proof is on the person objecting, but rather on the person proposing the removal. But I digress.) I state my objection. AI is not satisfied, solicits further input coupled with more threats. Kelly Martin objects as well. AI's response is to cite WP:NPA and to declare: "I will use the policy/guideline and specifically ignore any further comments you have about personal comments/attacks whether you address me here or my talk page." While AI has so far not yet removed the "offending" comments, his actions on the talk page are deeply disturbing: he solicits input from the community, and when that doesn't go in the direction he wants, he again attempts to hide behind policy and simply ignore the opinions of other editors.
 * These three incidents (and these are in no way isolated incidents) all show a common tendency: AI does not respect the consensus of the community.
 * I'm not sure what an appropriate remedy would be. A revert parole might work, but AI might change his tactics to a slow war of attrition instead of frequent reverts. Clearly the ideal remedy would be one that on the one hand would encourage him to suspend controversial edits and discuss changes, and on the other hand would force him to stop once a rough consensus has been reached, no matter whether he agrees with that consensus or not. --MarkSweep 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction, I do not respect the systemicly biased false consensus of a minority of the community who specialize on focusing on certain articles. Do you have any more opinions about me Mark? --AI 03:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This problem with the little cabals is a threat to NPOV in Wikipedia. --AI 03:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: this request is about your disruptive behavior only, nothing else. We're not talking about the contents of articles here, but about the fact that you're not working toward consensus regarding the contents of articles. The community is indeed biased against disruptive editors. --MarkSweep 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

'''You're not being "clear." See my comments below. Your behavior has been very disruptive to me and I have been called highly active contributor by others. All one has to do is look at the time I have spend in dealing with this arbitration which will be documented and used as evidence against you. I have no intention of allowing you to claim this arbitration is "nothing else" You're claim that I am a disruptive editor is further proof of your bias as I have not been mostly a disruptive editor, I am mostly an highly active contributor. --AI 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)'''

Furthermore this is a request for arbitration, the arbitrators have to consider my arguments also. So far they haven't, so my attitude towards Wikipedia in general is justified. I disagree with the way arbitrators are remaining biased and have not responded to my request for an arbitrator to assist me with my side. There is no one above these arbitrators correcting their silly injustics. Therefore I see not reason to respect Wikipedia. And considering all the propaganda and lies contained therein, Wikipedia should be destroyed through means which do not break the law. Wikipedians are too quick to act with their misunderstoods and they ignore timeline which is necessary to understand changes in the various situations. --AI 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Article talk pages
Wikipedia users should be permitted to comment on content and edits only. At the same time, users should be enjoined from making any type of personal comments. If Wikipedia is going to suffer personal comments then related policies should be clarified to prevent snide remarks disguised as comments about "editing behavior". --AI 20:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome to advocate this position, but not to unilaterally adopt it in the absence of consensus. Fred Bauder 00:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred Bauder, I want you removed from this arbitration on the grounds of incompetence and bias. Except for the "edits" part, my opinion is based on current Wikipedia policy. The "edits" bit is simply to satisfy you guys, especially MarkSweep. For you to make such a statement that I may not unilaterly adopt this clearly demonstrates you do not really know what is going on with these issues and I demand you remove yourself from this arbitration! Failure to abide by my request is not doing anything to repair my current attitude toward Wikipedia. --AI 02:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Incivility, which includes, but is no limited to, personal attacks, is already prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia. The problem in this case is that the remarks in question, which you called "personal attacks", are neither personal nor attacks. Removal was unjustified, and repeated removal over the objections of other editors is disruptive, disrespectful, disgraceful, as Jackie Chiles would say. --MarkSweep 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree that some of the remarks I removed were not entirely personal. However, most of the remarks I removed were personal comments and about half of those were personal attacks. Opinions by Jackie Chiles are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. --AI 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If MarkSweep really intentends to correct underlying problems, then how come he has This is proof of his prejudice, discrimination and bias against me as a Scientologist.--AI 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not targetted the users actually making personal attacks.
 * 2) Skipped any mediation process.
 * 3) Targetted me for my removal of personal attacks.
 * 4) Targetted me for my reverts of those who restored the personal attacks.
 * 5) Not contributed at all to the discussions at WP:NPA and related articles.

This is not about who you say you are, but about your actions on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above: I am indeed prejudiced against disruptive editors, but this has nothing to do with who they are or claim to be. --MarkSweep 23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The users making personal attacks were reacting to your own prior personal attacks. You can't entirely blame them for responding in kind.
 * 2) Mediation was attempted, but the mediators concluded that it wasn't really a dispute between two editors that could be settled by mediation.
 * 3) I "targetted" you for your removal of what you call "personal attacks", which was disruptive because they weren't personal attacks.
 * 4) I "targettted" you for your reverts that continued to remove legitimate comments.
 * 5) There is no point in me contributing to WP:NPA because it doesn't need fixing.

I disagree with your opinions. And as a reminder, you're calling me "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack. And the use of the term in this arbitration is a personal attack on the part of User:Fred Bauder on August 3, 2005 who entered it into the proposals. --AI 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) After I was corrected by others who addressed me in a civil manner, I ceased making personal attacks. Some of the others continued with their personal attacks and more users showed up with even more personal attacks.
 * No, the mediators concluded that they didn't see two parties asking for mediation. I wasn't seeking mediation because I didn't think it was necessary just yet and I was not prepared for mediation at the time.
 * 1) My refactoring was not disruptive and helped to clean up the talk page to keep discussion on relevant issues. Your's and others restoring the personal attacks/comment were disruptive to the discussion as evidenced by some there who insisted on arguing about personal attack/comments rather than on the content of the article.
 * 2) Personal attacks/comments are not legitimate comments according to WP:NPA.
 * 3) It obviously does need "fixing" because you think snide comments are legitimate. The policy is vague and suggest that even personal comments qualify under the policy. If the policy was clear then we would not be constantly in disagreement.
 * Saying that your interpretation of No personal attacks is idiosyncratic means that you interpret the policy differently from most users, certainly different from the interpretation adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is by definition of english words. What is the arbitration committe's interpretation or does it refuse to "word-clear" since word-clearing is a scientology technology? --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the definition of idiosyncratic from Websters --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

""

Using "idiosyncratic" to describe a persons viewpoint implies eccentricity. Did you know this? Or have you even ever word-cleared idiosyncratic? --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This basis of this entire dispute is based on disagreements with some who share David Touretzky's point of view, who does not believe in "word-clearing" by the way. :) --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, MarkSweep, who told you I was a disruptive editor? I have never been the subject of any RfC. --AI 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark!!! Who told you I was a disruptive editor? Or did you just arbitrarily decide it yourself based on your own interpretations and observation without any mediation or RfC? --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I must admit I am about to prohibit myself from further contribution to Wikipedia considering the treatment I have been getting from even the "arbitrators." --AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I quit, Wikipedia gets no respect and I will support it's competitors
It didn't take much effort to make this decision to quit. Bye. --AI 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still available for discussion at my discretion only (discussion here is acceptable to me but not any communication from MarkSweep to me. MarkSweep is the one who filed this RfArb "against" me).  I am not going to contribute any content any further until some problems with the "Wikipedia system" are resolved. For starters, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks --AI 06:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What happens now? I hope the case won't just be closed without any actions or findings. While I don't want to waste the ArbCom's time, it appears that a decision is within reach. Obviously, remedies won't be needed for the time being, but perhaps the findings of fact could be completed, so that there is a record for the future. --MarkSweep 01:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: is back, and has also edited semi-anonymously from. In light of AI's swift return, it may be best to allow this case to run its normal course. --MarkSweep 06:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not back, I have not contributed to any content since my "return." In my opinion this arbitration is a waste of everyone's time and I will not follow any recommendations based on biased evaluation. However, I will file a RfArb as my last contribution once this one is complete, after that I will support Wikipedia's competitors and those who seek to destroy Wikipedia. --AI 03:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I take the very fact that you are posting here to mean that you have not left Wikipedia for good. You're free to file an arbitration request at a later point, but from what you're saying it seems it would be closely related to the present RfAr. Meanwhile, your statements above are not only unhelpful, but deeply troubling. The purpose of this RfAr is to get you to understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that inflexible adherence to your interpretation of the letter of policies without regard for the opinions of your fellow editors is a recipe for disaster. In light of this, your claim that you misread or misunderstood policies is no excuse: what is problematic about your behavior is not any misunderstanding of policies, but your failure to engage in debate with other editors. One does not automatically "win" an editing dispute by correctly quoting the right policy, rather such disputes are settled by discussion among the parties and working towards consensus.  You can refer to policies that you think are applicable in such discussions, but quoting policies does not generally trump discussion. Saying, in effect, "I've already quoted policies and nothing you say can make me stop" is very, very bad.  Since you explicitly refused any input from ordinary editors in this matter, I figured you'd need to hear it from an established authority like the ArbCom (hence no RfC). Now I am shocked to learn that you "will not follow any recommendations based on biased evaluation". If that means that you intend to ignore any of the advice or remedies formulated by the ArbCom, you may soon find yourself on the way out.  Threats along the lines of "I will support [...] those who seek to destroy Wikipedia" are not helpful either; in fact, they are completely unacceptable. --MarkSweep 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And yes I mean it. --AI 03:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time I am giving Wikipedia a chance to change it flaws by offering discussion on some policy talk pages. Wikipedia is not cool, it's only cool to people who aren't aware of the systemic bias and those who are part of the systemic bias. --AI 03:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mutual Disrespect

 * Quoted from Proposed Decision:
 * "Interactions between AI and other editors are characterized by mutual disrespect, including personal attacks."

I am aware that:


 * ArbCom is not required to explain their reasoning to me
 * I have no power to force ArbCom to cite evidence

However, I am concerned that this statement makes a sweeping generalisation about all the editors AI has come into contact with. The cited evidence accompanying this finding of fact does not prove that either MarkSweep or NicholasTurnbull have in fact responded disrespectfully to AI. This could be a problem should the ArbCom proceed to propose remedies which prevent these parties becoming involved in disputes, which, without support, I would deem unfair.


 * Rob Church 03:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any proposed decision affects anyone other than AI or relies heavily on this finding. If you look at the workshop page you will see several personal attacks and nasty remarks. No search has been made for extensive evidence of personal attacks. I am not that comfortable with the proposal to ban AI from Scientology articles, but quite confident that "refactoring" pages needs to stop. Fred Bauder 22:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, you might as well. You've already made decisions and proposals based on some sociopaths' POVs. I hope your enjoying your unpaid time at Wikipedia. Or are you one who is being paid? --AI 02:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Status?
I see that is back to editing articles related to Scientology. Are the proposed remedies in effect? -Willmcw 04:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. He busted right through 3RR on the Rick Ross article in the past week and as far as I can tell they haven't taken any special action to punish him for it. 68.3.234.219 02:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! Propose a PUNISHMENT and try to enforce it... Wikipedia? --AI 02:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vicious Cycle --AI 03:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism
See Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. AI has indicated there that he is planning on disrupting Wikipedia sometime in the future. And why has there been no final decision in this case? Zoe 05:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes Zoe you are right. I will do everything in my power to destroy Wikipedia (through legal lawful means of course) when the time comes.  I have my reasons.  Have fun working for free. --AI 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This selection of edits, all by AI, should make the point. He calls the unpaid contributors "slaves" and says, and I QUOTE: "...Wikipedia is also used for propaganda and Jimbo Wale's friends support the propaganda or refuse to address the issue when it deals with subjects they oppose. Wikipedia is inherently hypocritical and biased and you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes." (My emphasis) - 206.114.20.121 (sdl.billheard.com) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)


 * Of course you fail to see why I have taken my position. Wikipedia is responsible for my newly adopted attitude. :) Give me a good reason why Wikipedia should be spared. --AI 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider him a useful contributor with an attitude like that. 206.114.20.121 19:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)


 * I don't think we can consider Wikipedia a useful member of society considering all the incompetent attitudes it contains. --AI 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My usefulness as a contributor is demonstrated by my contributions. My "contribution" will continue regardless of the status of the AI account or any related IP blocks. --AI 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to quote me to prove this. All you need is ask. Yes I intend to destroy Wikipedia because Wikipedia shows no effective effort to correct it's problems and Wikipedia's problems broadly affect almost every sector of society. I have stated my concerns weeks ago, and no one in Wikipedia seems to care. I tried contacting the AMA (silly name) and got no response. Wikipedia is run and ruled by critics of Scientology. Another reason I will help to destroy Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia can change my decision, but it will take an honest effort of the Wikipedia slaves, admins, administrators and of course Jimbo Wales himself. Now stop bothering me with this frivolous RfA. I have no respect for your organization or it's efforts in Justice. --AI 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Is AI's sockpuppetry to be found as fact?
Is there any doubt that 168.215.232.22 is AI? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * None whatsoever. --MarkSweep &#x270D; 03:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is quite likely that both (and a few others) are Barbara Schwarz Fred Bauder 11:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, since this is an Arbitration case, can we ask for developer assistance? Here's a list of accounts that may or may not be involved:
 * (blocked proxy)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (blocked proxy)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (blocked proxy)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --MarkSweep &#x270D; 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikislave or Wikidupe, those Ip's may be traced using the IP trace tools which are provided to you as an admin on the pages about sock puppets. --AI 23:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * (see Articles for deletion/Religious Freedom Watch/Comparison
 * Note that some of the anons acting up at Talk:Barbara Schwarz have been "signing" as "User Saint", "User Vivaldi rocks Barbara Schwarz" and similar. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * , who signed as AI in this edit, made on the same date as AI's first edits under that username. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * , who edited one of AI's statements in this edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * , who edited one of AI's statements in this edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikislave or Wikidupe, those edits also may be traced using the IP trace tools which are provided to you as an admin on the pages about sock puppets. --AI 23:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If it helps to understand, The ip's used by AI are also shared by a few other Wikipedia contributors who have been recruited by AI (or perhaps they are just sock puppets?). Note: making the wrong move will only cause more people to be upset with Wikipedia. In fact my vision of destroying Wikipedia is not my own, I hardly have to do anything but watch it fall. So here's my new motto: "HELP PUSH WIKIPEDIA OVER!!!" :) --AI 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why AI has turned against Wikipedia
I, AI, have turned against Wikipedia because of Wikipedia's apparently inherent incompetence in fairly dealing with systemic bias and other major issues. My evaluation was confirmed after a little research into this: At first I tried to help by pushing for policy development and I requested assistance on a few issues. Within the Wikipedia community, there seems to be more focus on criticizing others while ignoring the problems at home. Why should a big mess made by other be cleaned up by me (who is unpaid) while Wikipedia collects donations. --AI 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism" by Larry Sanger: "Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out." - Larry Sanger.
 * "Wikipedia Faces Growing Pains" By Daniel Terdiman: "The project has grown to such an extent that it is sometimes mentioned as an alternative to other resources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But with that growth, questions about how credible Wikipedia is, whether it can be respected by the academic community and how it might change are more important than ever. And as Wikipedia continues to expand, at about 7 percent per month, many wonder if the project can stay true to its core principles of openness and co-creation." - Daniel Terdiman
 * "Wikiwatch" maintained by Matthew White: "I really don't go out my way to find bad Wikipedia articles, but sometimes that's all that Google offers me." - Matthew White

To give Wikipedia a chance to adjust my attitude, I have put an AfD for Xenu. The article is composed from a source which cannot be reliable verified. Wikipedia rules on attribution have not been enforced upon the Xenu article. Keeping the article even though it is unverifiable is one prime example of why I think Wikipedia is biased. Arnie Lerma is the one who first copied the document to the internet and the church sued him and won its case, yet he still tries to lie and has his dupe Maureen D reverting my contributions of legal quotes which demonstrate that he lost and was ordered to pay the church fees for the violation. The church even asked for the minimum requirement to make things easier for Lerma. Interestingly, MarkSweep isn't complaining about Maureen D one bit. Instead he viciously has been defending David Touretzky and Keith Henson by attacking me personally with his rhetoric and this arbitration and his own subtle personal attacks and by his constant claims that my edits are irrelevant or not attributed to a reliable source. And even though I provide reliable sources, Mark, Maureen and the others further violate WP:NPOV and find another way to revert my contribution by claiming consensus does not support addition. Let me remind you that WP:NPOV states that consensus does not trump NPOV and the NPOV required even the significant-minority POV to be fairly represented. For Wikipedia's own sake (credibility has been at stake for some time) I suggest the arbitrators carefully consider what I am presenting, choose wisely and vote on the AfD. --AI 05:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Legal means"
AI's statement of intent to go against Wikipedia using "legal means" has been interpreted in one particular way while other interpretations are available. I think "legal means" should be contrasted with "illegal means", and not necessarily taken to mean filing suit in a court of law. For example, AI's recent attempts at trolling (see e.g. the contributions of and compare  and  with )  may not violate any criminal laws (hence could be considered a legal means), but this is clearly against Wikipedia's own policies and probably also against the Acceptable Use Policy of AI's ISP. I would hate to see AI get banned over a potential misunderstanding of a single phrase. However, I also think that AI's presence on Wikipedia is no longer tolerable. I was initially hopeful that AI would change the problematic behavior that this complaint was originally about. Instead, AI has tried to use this as a forum for airing his unrelated grudges. AI's recent statements and activities speak for themselves and should be sufficient grounds for a ban. --MarkSweep &#x270D; 14:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are misinterpreting him at all. "you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes." is a legal threat. How else would he be able to even hope to destroy wikipedia by lawful means? This isn't a misunderstanding of a single phrase. This is a clear understanding of AI's true intent. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that, if AI gets banned, it isn't because of a lone ambiguous phrase. In the larger context of AI's recent statements, however, there's no room left for ambiguity. AI's statement of intent is plain enough. --MarkSweep &#x270D; 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * MarkSweep's explanation that interpretation varies from person to person is right. Just like how Mark has his own interpretation of Wikipedia and its policies, there are other interpretations available. Anyway, Mark's petty threats of being banned are nothing compared to the non-AI-related threats lingering over Wikipedia. I would hate to see mis-treatment of AI by the "opinion leader" of a systemic bias result in AI's contribution to those dangers just because Wikipedia is too big for its britches and isn't fully aware of the systemic bias' abuse towards a once highly active and new contributor who represented a broad spectrum of POVs and voluntarily assisted in mediation in controversial articles. Wikipedia's failure to keep systemic bias in check is no longer tolerable. I was initially hopeful that Wikipedia's systemic bias would change its problematic behavior. Instead, it turns out that Wikipedia is full of hot air in regards to this and allows its content to be used as a forum for airing propaganda and lies. MarkSweep's work towards censoring facts is confirmation that Wikipedia is what I am explaining and is sufficient grounds for AI to discard Wikipedia and begin the next phase of destroying Wikipedia through legal means. It is too bad that Wikipedia allows people such as MarkSweep to abuse others as if his views are authoritative and fully representative of Wikipedia's. --AI 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * AI, please remember that "it's" is only used as a contraction of "it is". When you mean the possessive of "it", the correct way of indicating it is "its". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK --AI 01:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)