Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by User:AI

(NOTE: Do not edit this portion of evidence AT ALL unless you are an impartial arbitrator or if you have discussed it with AI and obtained permission. --AI 01:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC))

14 July 2005

• 15:56
  • I notified User:Modemac with questions about his POV contributions in Keith Henson.[2]

• 23:10
  • Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my messages.[3]

15 July 2005

• 10:25 - 10:26
  • I notified Modemac again with questions and arguments about my dispute of his POV contributions.[4],[5]

• 19:44
  • Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my message.[6]

18 July 2005

• 09:52
  • User:NicholasTurnbull leaves subtle personal attacks implying that my sourcing is spurious and I do not "maintain" a NPOV in Talk:David S. Touretzky.[7]

• 15:19
  • Despite my opinion that NichalasTurnbull's comments are personal attacks, I responded to his posting in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[8]

19 July 2005

• 15:30
  • User:Marudubshinki corrected mispelling in my posting to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] and left personal attacks.[9]

• 16:06
  • I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to remove Marudubshinki's personal attacks and to correct Marudubshinki's editing of my postings(corrected my mispelling).[10]

• 01:15
  • I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[11]

• 01:28
  • I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[12]

• 01:33
  • I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky] and left a rebuttal to Modemac's claim that RFW is a hate group.[13]

• 01:40 - 01:47
  • I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[14],[15],[16]

• 01:49
  • Modemac reverted some of my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[17]

• 02:10
  • I notified Modemac, asking why he made/restored personal attacks.[18]

• 02:13
  • I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.[19]

• 02:20
  • Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a response to my message.[20]

• 02:23
  • Modemac reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[21]

• 07:19
  • NicholasTurnbull reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[22]

• 22:40
  • I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.[23]

• 22:44
  • I notified Modemac with a warning.[24]

• 23:09
  • Modemac restored personal attacks.[25]

• 23:11
  • Modemac made uncivil comments and personal attacks in his edit summary.[26]

20 July 2005

• 01:00
  • Modemac restored personal attacks.[27]

• 01:13
  • Modemac filed a request for mediation.[28]

• 01:15 - 01:16
  • Modemac posts to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] that he has filed a request for mediation.[29],[30]

• 02:39
  • I post a message to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] questioning the basis for dispute.[31]

• 07:57
  • NicholasTurnbull reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[32]

• 09:48
  • I made a contribution to David S. Touretzky with an edit summary which clearly expressed my changes.[33]

• 10:42
  • I reverted to restore my factoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[34]

• 10:55
  • User:Joolz reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[35]

• 11:47
  • User:MarkSweep reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[36]

• 12:12
  • I notified MarkSweep with my explanation of my refactoring. In light of Modemac's RfM, I told MarkSweep I would not communicate with him any further unless he was a mediator.[37]

• 12:21
  • MarkSweep responded on his own talk page with his opinion.[38]

• 12:54
  • MarkSweep's first contribution to [David S. Touretzky] consisted of partially reverting my contribution.[39]

• 13:21
  • MarkSweep notified me with his opinion as to what defines "personal comments."[40]

• 13:53
  • MarkSweep notified me that he will file a request for arbitration against me.[41]

• 14:10
  • MarkSweep filed a request for arbitration assigning me as Party 1 and himself as Party 2. His statement contained a personal attack describing me as idiosyncratic and he states that I have explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors.[42]

• 16:14
  • MarkSweep's second edit to [David S. Touretzky] was in response to database errors or an edit conflict with me.[43]

• 22:53 - 22:54
  • Jdforrester filed a 3RR report on me.[44]

• 23:02
  • Jdforrester notified me of the 3RR violation.[45]

• 23:12
  • I notified Jdforrester the 4th was not a revert.[46]

• 23:17
  • Jdforrester notified me expressing his disagreement about the 4th revert.[47]

• 23:20 - 23:22
  • I notified Jdforrester about the disagreement.[48]

• 23:21
  • MarkSweep notified me with his opinion about personal comments, calling his opinion a "clarification."[49]

• 23:30
  • Jdforrester notified me with an explanation that he has not abused any previlidges.[50]

• 23:33 - 23:44
  • I responded to Jdforrester's explanation and redacted some of my misunderstandings.[51]

• Unable to verify time
  • When I tried to edit, I was informed by the server that I had been blocked for 3RR violation. User:Snowspinner statement was something to the effect of "blindly trusting Jdforrester". I never received notification from the admin to my talk page. Simply blocked. I appealed to Snowspinner with an email. Admin never responded.

21 July 2005

• 00:35
  • MarkSweep notified me that his request for arbitration had been filed.[52]

• 14:54
  • I reverted to restore my contribution to David S. Touretzky.[53]

• 20:45
  • MarkSweep's third edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a revert of my restoration of my original contribution.[54]

• 22:09
  • Anon user (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) edited David S. Touretzky making some changes but also added some POV.[55]

22 July 2005

• 11:14
  • MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[56]

• 11:40
  • I partially edited Anon user's (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) changes.[57]

• 12:15
  • MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[58]

• 23:48
  • MarkSweep attempted to delete one of my user sub pages with VfD.[59]

22 July 2005

• 12:21
  • MarkSweep's fourth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a restoration of content which was deleted by me accidentally due to a database error or edit conflict. I was never in support of removal of that content.[60]

• 12:42
  • Joolz reverted my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[61]

• 13:44
  • User:Calton makes personal attack in [Talk:David S. Touretzky]. [62]

• 15:10
  • I posted a comment to Talk:Keith Henson about Keith's explosives background.[63] No one answered my comment as of 25 July 2005.

• 15:12
  • I changed [Keith Henson] according to my comment.[64]

• 15:16
  • Marksweep reverted my edit without discussion, only a brief comment in his edit summary.[65]

• 16:18
  • Because I agree with him partially I did not revert his edit, but only restored my contribution that he deleted.[66]

24 July 2005

• 03:49
  • User:Touretzky edited [David S. Touretzky] and left an edit summary "no such post as "scientific director"; my degrees are in CS"[67]

• 03:59
  • [User:Touretzky] edited [David S. Touretzky] again.[68]

• 15:38
  • After a few other contributors reverted my edits on [Keith Henson], I restored correctly attributed content.[69]

• 17:00
  • Having still not answered my comment regarding disputed content, MarkSweep reverted my edit to [Keith Henson] and left the edit summary "rv: take it to talk".[70]

• 18:43
  • MarkSweep's fifth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was simple wikification and a "valid" removal of link to amazon.[71]

31 July 2005

• 21:27
  • MarkSweep makes a contribution to [David S. Touretzky] yet he also deletes my contribution.[72]

1 August 2005

• 14:37
  • MarkSweep reverts [David S. Touretzky] based on his POV about my contribution, yet his revert removes more than he mentions.[73]

• 15:08
  • MarkSweep rewords a section of [David S. Touretzky], his most significant edit as of August 1, 2005.[74]

Evidence presented by MarkSweep

Organized by topic.

The specific complaint

AI has used his own interpretation of a disputed guideline in order to remove other users' comments on article talk pages. Moreover, he has done so repeatedly, persistently, and against community consensus. In a nutshell, you know something is wrong if there's a revert war on a talk page.

Status of the guideline on removing personal attacks

AI claims that his actions are supported by Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. This is an inofficial guideline which was heavily debated and whose status as a piece of policy is disputed. While guidelines should generally be followed, invoking a controversial guideline over the objections of several editors is simply wrong.

However, all of this is more or less irrelevant. What's at stake is not whether Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is official policy or not. Rather, AI's invocation of this guideline is spurious, as it only applies to personal attacks that are recognized as such by the community. In this case, AI has substituted his own, misguided definition of "personal attacks".

Here are some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks:

• "This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. However, it does enjoy sufficient support from the community for the arbitration committee to suggest that people apply it in particular circumstances. It is left up to individuals to decide whether to apply it themselves, and if they do they may find themselves having to explain their reasoning to the affected parties, which is probably no bad thing."
  • Comment: AI's explanations were rejected by several editors and supported by nobody besides him, yet he continued undeterred.
• "Whenever you refactor, do not destroy the context of a conversation -- all statements in the discussion should still make sense after the refactoring."
  • Comment: AI's disruptive attempts to delete comments led to confusion, as shown in User:Modemac's summary of a recent edit: "Cancel that restore - AI has removed coments from this page so many times, I've had trouble [keeping] track of what is supposed to be here". [75]
• "Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content."
  • Comment: AI has removed comments (see below) which were relevant to a substantive debate and which contained nothing that could be considered "personally offensive" by reasonable standards.

AI's definition of "personal attacks/comments"

AI's views on the definition of personal attacks/comments can be seen from the following statements he has made:

• I have a suggestion [...] [Users] should only reprimand an offending user in that user's talk page. To reprimand him in an article talk page is contrary to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which is stated at the beginning of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The personal attack in the article talk page can be removed.[76]

• My understanding [...] is that personal comments on article talk pages qualify as personal attacks. Personal comments should be entered in a user's talk page. Any personal comments/attacks on article talk pages [...] can be removed by anyone.[77]

• For the sake of civility any suggestions which are not about content should be sent to personal talk pages instead of in article talk pages. Personal suggestions to a user in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack.[78]

• Personal comments to another contributor in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack.[79]

• Instructing [editors not to make personal attacks] in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack according to Wikipolicy. You should instruct them on their personal talk page.[80]

• No language should be used anywhere which may be perceived by the user or others as offensive.[81]
  • Comment: The problem with this is that a user with ultra-thin skin may view things as offensive which the larger community would find unobjectionable.

• It is not an idiosyncraic view, his usage of this word is a personal attack. Any personal comments directed at me with adjectives that I disagree with are personal attacks in my opinion.[82]

• removed personal attack, restoration will count as another personal attack[83]

• Kelly Martin, [your] speculation[84] about User:AI is uncalled for and is taken as a personal attack […].[85]

AI attempts to enforce his take on the civility policy

The following activities take place on Talk:David S. Touretzky. AI has effectively removed a particular portion of another user's comments at least nine times. He was reverted and/or asked to stop several times by at least five different editors (Joolz, Modemac, MarkSweep, NicholsTurnbull, Talrias), with nobody voicing any support for his actions. While that was going on, a Request for Mediation was filed, AI was blocked for a 3RR violation, and this Request for Arbitration was filed, while AI continued his actions despite two pending requests, even coming close to violating 3RR a second time. It was only after all this that AI finally engaged in conversation on the talk page about his removal of comments. (All times are UTC-4.)

• 2005-07-18 15:52, User:NicholasTurnbull posts a long comment and concludes with: Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?[86]
• 2005-07-18 21:19, AI responds (without actually responding to any of the issues that Nicholas raised): Addressing my personal activity is irrelevant to this article and with my recent education in Wikipedia policy, my understanding is that it is also a violation of policy.[87]
• 2005-07-19 07:23, AI removes the portion of NicholasTurnbull's comment quoted above as well as his own replies, with an edit summary of -personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Wikipedia:No personal attacks [88]
• A spate of further edits follows, in which AI removes personal attacks he originated together with replies and comments by other editors. User:Modemac restores several comments, and AI begins reverting the restoration. See the history for futher details.
• 2005-07-19 13:19, NicholasTurnbull restores the portions of his own comment that AI had previously deleted.[89]
• 2005-07-20 04:40, AI removes a portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the second time.[90]
• 2005-07-20 13:57, Nicholas Turnbull restores his comments for the second time, noting in the edit summary that "there are no personal attacks" in his statements.[91]
• 2005-07-20 16:42, AI reverts with edit summary "revert. removed personal comments", thus removing NicholasTurnbull's comments for the third time.[92]
  • Comment: AI is splitting hairs over "personal attacks" vs. "personal comments". The real issue is civility (personal attacks/comments are just on example of incivil behavior), and there was nothing incivil about NicholasTurnbull's statements.
• 2005-07-20 16:55, User:Joolz reverts^2 AI's revert, summarizing: "revert - please don't remove other people's comments, that was not a personal attack".[93]
• 2005-07-20 17:11, AI reverts^3 Joolz's revert^2 of AI's prior revert. AI effectively removes portions of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the fourth time. AI summarizes his edit: "revert personal comments have no place in article talk pages. If you have something personal to say to me, send it to me talk page".[94]
  • At this point, one thread of the conversation branches off and runs concurrently on User talk:AI:
    • 2005-07-20 17:22, Joolz has something to say to AI, and posts on AI's talk page: Please stop removing "personal comments" from discussion pages. The people who have written those comments do not appreciate it, nor does it create a hospitable environment to discuss the article in. [...] Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks (which is a disputed guideline, not a policy) clearly states "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed".[95]
    • 2005-07-20 17:58, AI removes Joolz's comment from his talk page[96] and replies on Joolz's talk page: Will you please refrain from any further revert-restoring of personal accusations? His personal accusations are not simply "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule..." as you claim. I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. We have spoken...[97]
    • 2005-07-20 18:04, Joolz replies, reminding AI that removing comments is controversial and may even be considered vandalism.[98]
    • 2005-07-20 18:16, AI replies: I disagree with your opinion. I did not remove comments relevant to the article's dispute over "grounless attacks" and "spurious references" If you are not a Wikipedia mediator I will have no further discussion with you about this.[99]
• 2005-07-20 17:47 User:MarkSweep reverts^4 AI's revert^3, reminding him: "no substantial edits to other people's comments, please".[100]
  • At this point, another concurrent thread branches off, taking place on AI's and MarkSweep's talk pages:
    • 2005-07-20 18:12, AI contacts MarkSweep, saying: "If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks."[101]
    • 2005-07-20 18:21, MarkSweep replies, explaining that it is not up to AI to define civility as it suits him.[102]
    • 2005-07-20 19:21, MarkSweep contacts AI, asking him again to not remove legitimate comments against consensus.[103]
    • 2005-07-20 19:28, AI's entire response is: "As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored, take your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks."[104]
      • Comment: That was the final straw.
• 2005-07-20 18:23, AI removes a portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the fifth time.[105]
• 2005-07-20 18:23, MarkSweep restores NicholasTurnbull's comments.[106]
• 2005-07-20 18:24, AI removes the same portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the sixth time.[107]
  • The next few things take place elsewhere:
    • 2005-07-20 19:02, User:Jdforrester notifies AI that he is in breach of 3RR.[108] His assumption "I imagine that you weren't aware of this rule until now" turns out to be wrong, as AI is clearly aware of 3RR.[109]
    • 2005-07-20 19:46, User:Snowspinner blocks AI for 24 hours for the 3RR violation reported by James F.
    • 2005-07-20 19:57, this RfAr is filed.
    • 2005-07-20 22:01, User:Talrias contacts AI, asking him to "please consider this a friendly request to leave comments which other's make, and reply to them, rather than removing them because you feel they are personal attacks."[110]

One and a half days later:

• 2005-07-22 12:41, Modemac restores NicholasTurnbull's comments.[111]
• 2005-07-22 17:03, AI reverts, thus removing NicholasTurnbull's comments for the seventh time, claiming "I have already provided an explanation in my earlier reverts".[112]
  • Comment: This conveniently ignores the fact that his earlier "explanation" was not accepted by the community, and that AI was asked to stop by NicholasTurnbull, Modemac, Joolz, and MarkSweep.
• 2005-07-22 17:14, MarkSweep reverts.[113]
• 2005-07-22 18:08, AI reverts (eighth removal), commenting: "please explain your revert, I have already explained mine".[114]
• 2005-07-22 18:15, MarkSweep reverts, without feeling like he owes AI another explanation for something that was explained to him at least four times already.[115]
• 2005-07-22 18:18, AI reverts again (ninth removal).[116]
• 2005-07-22 18:42, Joolz reverts, commenting: "please don't remove other people's comments, however much you dislike them." [117]
• At this point, if AI were to revert again, he would be in violation of 3RR. Wisely, he opts for discussion instead of keeping on reverting. Debate ensues.[118]

The general problem

The specific complaint above is just one instance of what appears to be a general pattern in AI's activities and interactions with other editors. His tactics include:

• Attempts to control the conversation:
  • Indicating that he will only engage in conversation with certain people.
    • Unless you are a mediator, I will have no further communication with you on this.[119]
    • I will only provide information at the request of an arbitrator. Currently, the only arbitrator I will respond to is James F.. [120]
    • Messages from MarkSweep are not acceptable to me.[121]
    • AI's response is "Are you Joolz?" when User:Calton replies to a question that AI had directed at User:Joolz on Talk:David S. Touretzky. The question clearly concerned a larger number of editors, as Joolz was only one of several who had reverted AI.[122]
  • Indicating that conversations must take place in a certain manner and certain locations specified by him.
    • I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If the critic doesn't like my sources then that should be discussed without personal remarks or comments. His personal comments should have been sent to my talk page, not posted to an article talk page.[123]
    • [T]ake your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks.[124]
    • If you seek to police my actions more strictly, then I suggest you engage in discussion at WP:NPA and revise the document. Until then 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.[125]
  • Indicating that he is unwilling to continue certain conversations.
    • As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored [...].[126]
    • Further messages from you about this will be ignored.[127]
    • We have spoken...[128]
  • Passive-aggressively stating vague preconditions to futher discussion.
    • "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" contains lies. I will not submit my statement until the lies are corrected. [129]
    • My statement about lies is the only statement I will provide until the requestor changes his presentation.[130]

• Attempts to derail those who oppose him:
  • Aggressively enforcing policies and guidelines as interpreted by him (outlined above).
  • Personal accusations against others.
    • While AI has scaled back his attacks on others, he continues to make veiled threats or attacks. For example, saying things like "I'll refrain from making personal comments about you here in this talk page"[131] is very close to saying "Not to make this personal", which is one of the more serious examples of uncivil behavior listed on Wikipedia:Civility.
  • Baseless accusations of alleged and/or minor policy violations by others.
    • The accusations of incivility outlined above are without merit, made only for the purpose of removing comments he doesn't like.
    • His earlier listings on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts also contain a number of over-blown or completely baseless accusations.[132][133]
  • Threats, real or imagined.
    • any action taken by you opposing my action will be added to the arbitration.[134]
    • Should I call in some commoners from the village pump to see what they think about Kelly and Mark's activities? :)[135]
    • any much more of this and I will contact Jimbo Wales myself about Wikipedia's problems[136]
  • Pre-emptive strikes against future opposition.
    • anyone disputing my action is simply out of their mind[137]
    • removed personal attack, restoration will count as another personal attack[138]
  • Demanding explanations, evidence, and/or citations of policy from others, while never being satisfied with the responses he gets:
    • In the future, I suggest that you please refer others to policy with citations instead of just offering opinions.[139]
    • You need to educate yourself on Wikipedia policy.[140]
  • Continued incivility, though not rising to the level of personal attacks.
    • "Thank you for your opinion."[141] (pairs of single quotes in original)
    • I see nothing wrong with this statement other than Kelly's (who is Dr. Touretzky's "friend") and MarkSweep's apparent desire to "protect" Professor Touretzky reputation which I have not destroyed. David Touretzky destroyed his own reputation and now is using these dupes to protect himself from further damage.[142]
  • Recreating content in user space that was rejected from the article space.
    • User:AI/Touretzky quotes is a list of alleged "quotes" by David S. Touretzky that AI intended to use in the article on Touretzky. That met with vocal opposition from several editors, because the "quotes" are apparently based on chat logs and because the only secondary source that uses them is heavily biased and fails to mention where the "quotes" come from. I cannot decide whether AI's creation of a Touretzky quotes pages in his user space is an attempt to discredit only Touretzky, or an attempt to create legal problems for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Libel).

AI fails to respect the spirit of policies

What is deeply troubling is that AI views policies as tools that can be wielded to silence the opposition. For him, they are means to an end, rather than guidelines and suggestions that ensure the smooth operation of Wikipedia. A particularly telling quote is this:

Gabriel, please walk lightly. There are actions you can take when you run into opposition, keep reading policies and you'll see.[143]

He has launched specific inquiries about policies that regulate the removal of comments.[144][145][146] Once he found a policy that suited him, he applied it rigidly and aggressively according to his own idiosyncratic interpretation, as demonstrated above. His persistence in editing other editors' comments is in stark contrast with his prior objections against his own comments being edited by others:

Don't touch my posts even to correct a mispelling.[147]

On the same talk page, he also invokes the policy against original research to silence another editor:

Your opinion [expressed on the talk page] is original research and not welcome in Wikipedia.

If all else fails, he will fall back to accusing those he sees as his opponents of "biting newcomers":

If you are going to bite other newcomers, don't bother trying to hide your [teeth].[148]

The picture that emerges is that of someone who will cling to any remotely relevant piece of policy and terminology that can help him with his own agenda.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 194.89.17.4 (talk · contribs)
• 200.117.188.38 (talk · contribs)
• 202.175.181.228 (talk · contribs) (blocked proxy)
• 213.207.193.167 (talk · contribs)

Those are IP addresses, not sock puppet. (Further demonstration of inherent incompetence of the doomed Wikipedia) --AI 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DreamGuy

I am an outsider to the complaints discussed above, but now that I see this arbitration is in process (I had not heard of it earlier) I thought I would add some evidence in other areas of User:AI breaking policy.

A large number of the alleged evidence presented against me in a recent RfC were placed there by AI, and it's quite clear that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work at all from the things he was complaining about. If you see accusations 12-15 you'll see he is accusing me of being a horrible editor when all I was doing was calmly and patiently editing to makes things follow the NPOV policy. Accusation 18 is an outright misrepresentation (I won't call it an outright fabrication, as he could have been confused, but then why not rescind it once his error was pointed out?), as he links to an edit in history showing an editor removing his own vote on a VfD and then tries to claim that it was me removing "an opposing users vote in a VfD" -- not only was the vote NOT an opposing vote, but I did not remove it, and it's obvious once you click the link in question. Further the talk page of this RfC is littered with comments of his showing completely uncivil behavior towards myself and the 12 editors who signed outside views and would not support his side (and note that other than the two people he brought in at the start -- another of whom who had a major RfC with 20 people against him -- no editors endorsed his claims). Following the links provided in his claims (accusations 12-15) shows him making highly POV edits to articles, and also reverting Missing Sun myth to the version he wanted (making a fork file in the process, as the page had previously been moved) while a VfD was in progress showing clear consensus that the article could not be that way (see here [149]). Based upon his other edits it is also highly likely he did not have an actual opinion on that article but was simply trying to undo edits I had made solely because it was me who made them.

Dreamguy, thank you for your contribution. Please appeal to Jimbo Wales for your payment as a consultant. --AI 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Antaeus Feldspar

AI's behavior shows that he wants to only obey those principles of Wikipedia, and only those portions of those principles, that are convenient to him at the moment. There may be nothing that shows this better than his inconsistent policy on personal attacks. MarkSweep has already done an excellent job showing how AI made personal attacks upon other editors, then purported to discover the official policy of "No personal attacks" rule and the disputed guideline of "Remove personal attacks at the same time, and applied the latter to erase his own personal attacks and the responses from other editors.

AI's prejudicial interpretation of this latter disputed guideline as his right to "rewind" a conversation and erase any portion of it that fit under his stretchy definition of a "personal attack" is already quite clear (for instance, defining a civilly-worded request that he abide by Wikipedia policy as a "personal attack".)[150] What makes it absolutely clear that AI is doing so in bad faith is his return to making personal attacks -- this time in the text of the article itself.

AI has done this twice under at Religious Freedom Watch: [151], [152]. It could be argued by a devil's advocate that he actually believed an appropriate way to deal with material he did not want to accept into the article was to isolate it under the sub-header "Claims by User:Antaeus Feldspar" and return the rest of the article to the state he preferred -- essentially creating a content fork within a single article. However, it cannot be claimed that there was good faith behind adding my username to the "See Also" section of Tin-foil hat, as AI did here: [153] This is the most damning proof that AI does not intend to adhere to any Wikipedia policy for longer than it is convenient, because he previously made the implication on the talk page of the article that I wore a tin-foil hat: [154], [155], [156] then later defined it as a personal attack and repeatedly removed it [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162] -- despite the person targeted by these personal attacks (myself) very clearly spelling out that the intent of the "Remove personal attacks" guideline was civility and that if he is edit warring over his right to remove them, it shows he was not removing them for the correct reason: [163], [164], [165], [166]. What he has done with this latest action is to make what by his own repeated insistence is a personal attack upon me, and this time making it in the article text, so that any Wikipedia reader will see his slam on me.

(I'd like to point out as well that AI has shown a particular hatred for the Tin-foil hat article, tagging it three times for speedy deletion: [167], [168], [169]. The third time happened almost a month after the first two, after it had already been well-explained to AI that there are only certain reasons why an article would be speedily-deleteable, and the reasons he cited ("nonsense", [170], [171], [172]; a "hoax" [173]) were inapplicable or explicitly not a reason to speedy-delete. Accordingly, his third attempt to bypass VfD/AfD to get the article deleted did not cite any reason the article should be deleted except the cryptic question "Is this a serious encyclopedia or not?" -- and did not disclose in the edit summary that he had marked the article for deletion. He also removed Tin-foil hat from the "See Also" section of Mind control, with a personally-directed edit summary and with no explanation of why a connection to such a clearly relevant article should be removed. [174])

This section will be added to later, to show the falseness of AI's claim that he has never "explicitly refused [any] communication from ordinary editors." What he has done is define anyone disagreeing with him as 'not an ordinary editor' and refused any communication from them -- ordinary or not -- that he finds inconvenient. This will be documented by showing how AI tried to change the categorization of articles he disagreed with based on a policy he was quoting -- but ignored the second half of a sentence in order to categorize things the way he wanted them, not openly refused an explanation of where he was misapplying the policy with "stop wasting your time and mine trying to explain things", but threatened to add any further attempts to explain to RfC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by HKT

I've had to deal with AI's belligerence (on the Iran-related article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), which, as the latest series of disruptions to the article, ultimately led to page-protection. There is a section in the Ahmadinejad article which details allegations against Ahmadinejad that were widely discussed in most leading mainstream international media sources. This was accompanied by a flurry of statements from the Iranian and US governments about those allegations. AI tagged the allegations section with sectfact templates and the following remarks:

"Why perpetuate a controversy based on dubious claims and conflicting accounts? Wikipedia should not be used to promote controversies, that is what tabloids are for. Is Wikipedia a tabloid?"

This bizzare understanding of WP:NOR and Wikipedia's notability standards was nevertheless not an explanation for tagging sections as factually inaccurate. In fact, no such explanation was provided. The section in question was the product of collaboration between editors of various and opposing POVs, and was ostensibly quite balanced and factual (though not immune to persistent vandalism). That section emphasized that the allegations were claims that had not been verified. Similarly, that section gave equal focus to denials of the allegations against Ahmadinejad. AI's tagging was reverted on the above grounds. Nevertheless, AI continued to either tag the section as factually inaccurate or delete several paragraphs (entire subsections) outright. He did this under his user name and IP proxies, variably [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]. When I explained to him that the Ahmadinejad allegations have been the subject of a US government investigation and widespread media scrutiny, AI responded as follows:

"Has the US government launched an investigation into these claims about Ahmadinejad and his involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis? To hell with mainstream media. Anyone with enough money can become "mainstream media." Anyway, I would be happy to nominate you as a sysop of any future Wikitabloid." [182]

AI then followed by initiating a frightening new section on the article's talk page, entitled:

Will the wikipedia contributors be willing to take responsibility for their involvement in perpetuation of totally disputed controversy?

His comment in that section consisted only of an image of the nuclear detonation at Nagasaki. [183]

I have not had other encounters with this editor, but the apparent trend of intimidation and disruption is troubling. HKT ^talk 06:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

HKT's quotes of me are correct and I do not take back my words. --AI 00:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)