Case Opened on 15:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:45, 29 September 2005 (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

Party 1:

AI (talk · contribs)

Party 2:

MarkSweep (talk · contribs)
NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs)

Statement by party 1

Statement by User:AI

The basis of my disputes with MarkSweep is over refactoring and reverts. MarkSweep's opinion is that refactoring should not be done without consensus.

With reference to Wikipedia policy, I explained to MarkSweep why I removed some comments. He responded with an opposing opinion and continued to revert my removals. My refactoring was justified and supported by the policies that I referenced for him. My refactoring has not affected those discussions and I have been unbiased by removing my personal comments and those by others. MarkSweep is still reverting my contributions and apparently not considering my arguments in the related talk pages.

My 3rr block the other day was a technicality, I only "reverted" 3 times, the 4th was because I made a mistake in my 3rd "revert." I tried to explain this to User:Jdforrester and the admin who blocked me, Jdforrester disagreed and the admin who blocked me has not responded to my Wiki-email.

MarkSweep confrontation with me mainly consists of his "policing" of my contributions and arguing in the talk page about personal comments/attacks. He has not significantly contributed David S. Touretzky but maintains a presence there which creates the effect of consensus with Kelly Martin. In concert with Kelly Martin, he attempts to enforce his opinion about removing personal remarks as if he is an authority.

--AI 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Statement by MarkSweep

User:AI has used a very idiosyncratic interpretation[1][2][3] of civility and associated policies to censor comments on talk pages.[4] He has engaged in edit warring[5][6][7], and attempts to contact him are rebuffed with him saying that he is unwilling to engage in any further communication on user talk pages.[8] [9][10][11][12] Attempts to debate him on article talk pages are reverted by him as "personal comments/attacks".[13][14][15][16][17][18] What AI labels "personal comments" by others are not so much comments about him (those would be personal comments), as they are comments directed at him, for example, reminders to respect NPOV, which are perfectly acceptable and only natural on talk pages.

What is especially worrying is that AI apparently intends to hide behind his interpretation of the letter of certain policies without respecting the spirit in which they were crafted. He remained undeterred in his removal of other editor's comments even though he was reverted several times by different editors and was eventually blocked for a 3RR violation. Some of AI's earlier interactions were more along traditional lines, discrediting his opponents[19], listing them for Wikiquette violations[20][21], or attempting to file an RFC against them[22]. As that proved ineffective, he started to show an active interest in policies that would allow him to remove comments[23][24][25], and his subsequent statements[26][27][28] make it clear that he apparently intends to follow a letter-of-the-law approach (while still using his own unique definitions of crucial terms like "personal comment" and "credible source"). The fact that he tries to enforce the No-Personal-Attacks/Civility policy aggressively while blatantly violating other policies like 3RR indicates that he is not interested in Wikipedia policy as a tool for facilitating the smooth operation of the project. Instead, he uses whatever policies may suit him as a means to silence editors who don't agree with him or who question his motives.

I'm bringing this case to the ArbCom fairly early in the dispute resolution process for two reasons: (1) AI has made it clear that he cannot be reasoned with; (2) this is an attempt at Fixing Broken Windows before further damage is caused. Let's nip this in the bud before it spirals out of control. In fact, let's make this short and sweet: AI needs to hear from someone with authority that he cannot censor and ignore comments as he wishes. If that message is conveyed successfully, no further actions are required. Consider this the "small claims" division of the ArbCom, if you will. The way things are headed, if you dismiss this as "too early, come back later", this case will indeed come back later, but will be a major headache then, as opposed to a minor annoyance now. --MarkSweep 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[To James F.:]

- See this diff: [29]. --MarkSweep 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this: [30]. --MarkSweep 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NicholasTurnbull

User:AI's handling of communication and constructive criticism on Wikipedia has been unpleasant and evasive. This user has arbitrarily edited my reasonable comments on Talk:David S. Touretzky on the grounds of "removing personal attacks" on multiple occasions (see [31], [32], [33]) and reverted my restoration of them (see [34], [35], [36]). It is my opinion that my comments were reasonable (albeit firm), and were merely reporting on the facts of the matter at hand. In addition, User:AI has avoided addressing the specific points in my reasonable requests for the use of reputable sources in article writing on this user's talk page, communicating rudely to me whilst avoiding the question when answering and refusing to conform to NPOV policy (see my messages on User_talk:AI [37], [38]; for AI's response on my talk page, [39], [40]). In addition, User:AI has accused me of making personal attacks, which is an untrue accusation (ref. [41]). --NicholasTurnbull 00:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must, however, report that following recent communication today with this user, User:AI responded politely and pleasantly to my most recent message on his talk page. Thus, I believe that it may be possible for the matter to be resolved without recourse to disciplinary measures and shows a willingness to cooperate on this user's part. --NicholasTurnbull 23:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted by the arbitrators that, contrary to the statement made by User:AI above, "Repeated personal attacks directed towards me by Modemac, Antaeus Feldspar and a few others in several article talk page.", User:Antaeus Feldspar has never made a single edit to the disputed Talk:David S. Touretzky talk page, which can be verified through the edit history for that page, and I cannot find any possible basis for claims of said attacking comments on any talk pages for either of those cited users. --NicholasTurnbull 00:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

Please see Michael Snow's comments above: AI is currently blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't know how this is done, but I'd like to put this request on hold temporarily until AI has had a chance to respond. --MarkSweep 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI has indicated that he is preparing a statement. --MarkSweep 20:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse - I'm in the thick of this one, and will be contributing evidence. I urge its acceptance, however - David Gerard 09:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral; would like to see AI's response, first. James F. (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)~~ Given AI's reticence to bother us with his decision, we shan't wait. Accept. James F. (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I see no need to jump through hoops to get AI to make a statement; it's only to his benefit to do so. →Raul654 22:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Neutrality^talk 07:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Accept - this is going to get us into what constitutes a personal attack? and when is it appropriate to remove a personal attack? and who should be removing them? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Wikipedia policies

1) All users are welcome to suggest changes to Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. However suggested changes or interpretations do not become policy unless they are adopted by community consensus.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Article talk pages

2) Article talk pages are intended for discussion of editing and sources cited in the article they are attached to. In the course of such discussion, such dialogue may properly include information about editing behavior.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks

3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [42]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Account which exhibit the same pattern of behavior can be treated as one user

4) In instances where a user or small group of users with the same behavior pattern have used a number of accounts, for the purposes of Arbitration, they may be treated as one user.

Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who are in a legal dispute with Wikipedia

5) A Wikipedia user who is involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia may be banned until the legal dispute is settled or resolved.

Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) Disputes between AI (talk · contribs) and other users including the two users who brought this complaint, MarkSweep (talk · contribs) and NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) mainly concern articles about critics of Scientology, Keith Henson and David S. Touretsky.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mutual disrespect

2) Interactions between AI (talk · contribs) and other editors are characterized by mutual disrespect, including personal attacks, see [43] [44]

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring by AI

3) AI (talk · contribs) has removed dialogue a number of times from article talk pages in what they describe as refactoring [45] [46] [47], this behavior has included edit warring on talk pages [48] [49]. In contradiction to Wikipedia:No personal attacks he has adapted his own idiosyncratic version of the policy which he has attempted to apply. This has interfered with communications with other users [50], [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57].

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing on David S. Touretzky

4) AI has repeatedly edited the article on David S. Touretzky, a critic of the Church of Scientology, to include material disparaging of him. [58][59]

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

5) AI (talk · contribs) has edited from a number of anonymous ips which may include: 24.94.88.236 (talk · contribs) 168.215.232.22 (talk · contribs) 194.89.17.4 (talk · contribs) 200.117.188.38 (talk · contribs) 202.175.181.228 (talk · contribs) (blocked proxy) 205.127.246.101 (talk · contribs) 205.127.246.199 (talk · contribs) 207.200.131.46 (talk · contribs) 213.207.193.167 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/AI/Proposed_decision#Is_AI.27s_sockpuppetry_to_be_found_as_fact.3F and recently [60].

Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI's dispute with Wikipedia

6) AI (talk · contribs) states that he is involved in a dispute with Wikipedia, declaring his intention to "destroy Wikipedia" by "legal means" [61], [62] [63].

Passed 5 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (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.

AI prohibited from "refactoring"

1) AI (talk · contribs) is prohibited from removing dialogue of any sort from any talk page or rearranging any talk page, including material which, in AI's opinion, constitute "personal comments" or personal attacks. This does not apply to their own user talk page.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI prohibited from CoS articles

2) AI is prohibited from editing any article related to the Church of Scientology. If they should violate this, an admin may ban them for a short period (up to 24 hours). For repeat offenses, they may be banned for up to a week per violation.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI restricted to one account

3) AI (talk · contribs) shall use that account and no other for editing. Extended editing by any anonymous IP which exhibits the behavior associated with User:AI shall be considered to be the edits of AI for purposes of application of this decision.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI banned pending final resolution of legal disputes

4) AI (talk · contribs), under any user name or anonymous IP, is banned from Wikipedia pending final resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by ban

1) AI (talk · contribs) may be briefly banned if they removes any dialogue from any talk page other than their own user page. In the case of repeat offenses a ban may be up to a week.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of sockpuppet ban

2) Should AI (talk · contribs) edit under any other user account or for any extended period as an anonymous IP they may be banned for a month, and up to a year in the case of repeat offenses.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of ban pending resolution of disputes

3) Pending final resolution of all legal disputes between AI and Wikipedia, any edit by AI under any user name or anonymous IP may be removed immediately by any editor.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)