Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
"was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is propaganda. Scarff claims he was directed to murder someone, but it is only his claim, not fact, that "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement". The article was written as if "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" was fact. -- Nikitchenko 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best place to start is from the discussion (now removed) on Redvers talk page. Copy follows:
So in a nutshell, this hinges on the following statement in the article:
Nikitchenko believes according to the above that "Some users are removing my dispute tag after I am saying their use wording is making things look like facts when all they really are is someone's claims (in a legal deposition)." However, if you inspect the talk page Nikitchenko NOT ONCE makes this claim Despite numerous requests as to why he keeps adding the tag.
We are not mind readers. Nikitchenko kept adding the tag without citing why, so, of course, it was going to be removed. Hope this clarifies, and thanks in advance for your consideration. - Gl e n T C 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Basically the article as it was previously stated made it appear as Scarff's testimony was fact because of wording "Much of what is known" and "revelations". Using the word known implies fact and using the word revelations also implies fact. Stollery and the others are using this article to spread propaganda which claims the OSA conspired to murder someone. -- Nikitchenko 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
These are some difficulties which I think are similar to some other disputes at so many Scientology pages. But I would like to state that my biggest problem with the other editors is their removing the dispute tag just because they disagree with the other side's dispute. In my opinion, if it is disputed, it is disputed. Communication should be done on the talk page without trolling, accusations and personal attacks to figure out exactly what the dispute is and resolve the dispute BEFORE removing the tag. These editors didn't allow that process. They remove the dispute tag first and then argue and then you have other editors coming to support their POV and some even starts to make personal attacks. -- Nikitchenko 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away for almost 2 weeks, but Im back for the weekend at least. I am partially happy about the compromise proposed by Vivaldi. There are still subtle problems with the article. and users who keep putting back in what I removed: "personal websites" that do not have "a reputation for for fact-checking and accuracy" See WP:RS and WP:V. Now this group of individuals are saying WP:RS is only guideline and at least one of these people make subtle personal attacks in other scientology related article's discussion space. And the others are now defending the one who made the personal attack instead of discussing content. -- Nikitchenko 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldpsar and Stollery is reverting my edits and not saying why [1] [2]. I clearly explain my deletions of unreliable sources in edit summary and talk page but Glen Stollery says Tory Christman's words can be used in the Office of Special Affairs article. This is against WP:V and WP:RS. -- Nikitchenko 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is copied from the edit summary of when Stollery reverts me today: "I have explained TWICE on the talk page; WP:RS states does not state "only in the article about the person" but writing about the person. We are writing about Tory here! Watch your 3RR". Glen, talk to me in this page, not the editorial summaries. We are not writing about Tory, we are writing about the Office of Special Affairs. I don't like the way you keep reverting my valid changes. I don't think a 3rr should be applied in here so I made a complaint into our mediation page and documenting this. Again, I do not appreciate what you are doing. I will return when a mediator has responded. -- Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. -- Nikitchenko 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely ignorant of the proper procedure of the Mediation process, so apologies in advance if my commenting here is out of line. I basically wanted to note two things: 1. Although the format here is presenting the dispute as being between Nikitchenko and Stollery, it is in fact between several editors who have reverted Nikitchenko's edits. And 2., a glance at the article's talk page will show Nikitchenko's behavior in the matter to be confrontational and uninformational. Several editors have attempted, without success, to get Nikitchenko to give explanations and citations for his position that statements made by one "Garry Scarff" are not proper for the Office of Special Affairs article. wikipediatrix 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I agree with comments of Wikipediatrix above. I asked Nikitchenko what the basis of his dispute with the article is and I never received a response. It is not appropriate to add the dispute tag unless you can at least cite specifically what is disputed. It is also innappropriate to use the dispute tag to point out that you disagree with the truthfulness of what has been verifiably sourced. It is not an editors job to independently determine truth. The only claim in the article is: "Scarff said 'such and such'". You cannot dispute that "Scarff said 'such and such'", because it is easily verifiable. (Scarff has made these claims hundreds of times and he continues to this very day to make the same assertions.) And if you want to dispute the "such and such" part of "Scarff said, 'such and such'", then you must do so in the article, by using sources that are verifiable. I'll be over on the talk page at Talk:Office of Special Affairs if you want to see my proposals. Vivaldi 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My statement in this matter will be brief and simple. Here on Wikipedia we operate on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If party A claims X-Y-Z, and party B claims Z-Y-X, we report that party A claims X-Y-Z and party B claims Z-Y-X. It is in fact spelled out that editors are discouraged from doing their own research to try and "determine" whether X-Y-Z or Z-Y-X is "the truth".
Nikitchenko, however, despite having edited on Wikipedia since August of 2005, acts as if he has never understood this principle, despite it being explained to him numerous times. Instead, he acts as if he believes that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be judging the truth or falsity of the claims made by the various parties, and inserting tags in the article in order to communicate their personal judgments to the reader. He reads in the article that party B has claimed Z-Y-X and he inserts a {{ dubious}} tag after it -- not because he in any way doubts or claims to doubt that B claims Z-Y-X, but because he asserts that he doubts Z-Y-X to be true -- and claims to believe that Wikipedia policy supports him inserting the {{ dubious}} tag to inform the world that he is second-guessing these claims.
Clearly this is not the way Wikipedia works, and yet, after a month and a half, Nikitchenko claims that he still thinks that the {{ dubious}} tag exists for the purpose of expressing the relative weight he, himself, chooses to give to claims of various sides. Needless to say, I find that claim of his quite {{ dubious}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This appeared to be in satisfaction of the initial issue raised by Nikitchenko, but doesn't seem to pertain to the most recent incarnation of this dispute. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV. This is the first time I have ever learned what is disputed, because on the talk page Nikitchenko has thus far failed to point out the basis for the dispute. We can certainly reword the specific sentence "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" and I will attempt to do so on the talk page now. Vivaldi 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That was a great compromise. But now there is more problem and I made a note of it in my statement up above. -- Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We'll evaluate this particular area of compromise after we've worked out the precise problem. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to mediate this case for you. What all parties need to decide is the format that they would like the mediation to take. My preference would be for it to take place on this page, and/or this page's talk page. IRC and e-mail are two other options, if people don't feel happy about everything be availbale to view for the whole community. It's up to you, but like I said my preference would be for the Wikipedia way. -- Wisd e n17 23:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm experienced at mediation and have particular subject-specific knowledge of Scientology (I'm an experienced auditor), and I'm the coordinator down here; if the mediator, or anyone else, would like my assistance, I'm at the service of anyone who would like me to be. All the best, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the long delay in processing this request, and I hope that it is possible we might be able to come to some sort of mutual agreement on how to bring this dispute to a close as expeditiously as possible. It is clear, looking at the matter, there is an actual dispute, but it seems difficult to pin down exactly what is still disputed regarding Office of Special Affairs (where I am assuming the new focus of dispute is). I would be grateful if each party would, in a brief and succinct summary, outline precisely which claims are disputed and where; please make this summary in the Discussion section below. In the meantime, however, I do have some thoughts about the matter, and I would ask the participants to please bear this in mind when summarising their side of the dispute:
If the parties would please try to summarise the points of contention, it would help me get a better idea of where we can proceed (since the discourse above, and on the various talk pages, is entangled and rather difficult to disassemble into specific issues). Once we know which areas are under dispute, we can work on a strategy to remedy those issues to the satisfaction of all parties, and the dispute will be resolved. Thank you very much. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems Nikitchenko ( talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. I spoke to User:MarkGallagher recently about this on IRC, and it seems this user was a sockpuppet of User:AI (who was banned by the arbcom - q.v. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI), and was identified as a sockpuppet by a CheckUser. Since it seems clear the dispute gravitated around this user, and nobody else in this mediation seems to have a problem with following Wikipedia policy on citing sources, I don't really think there's anything more to be done. I think perhaps it might be advisable to all parties, however, to look out for new AI socks assiduously in the future, to avoid wasted time in dealing with them. I apologise for the fact that this mediation has been rather pointless in effect; I should have asked someone to run a CheckUser when I took up the case. But anyway, I'm closing this case now. I would like to thank all the participants in this mediation for their time and effort. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Several editors would like to present a point of view that is negative and based on unproven lies rumors and other false reports. They are mostly unreliable sources and citation is mainly to their personal websites. This is a violation of the definition of reliable source that is referenced by WP:V. These editors claim various reason why these references can be used as a source and I and several others disagree with them. They keep reverting my changes and I am only trying to follow the rules. Usually the editors don't even say why they revert me and with their reverts they remove some of my other changes. It almost seems as if they revert me just because they see my name now. And they are making personal comments and acting very angry and uncivil. I already wanted to quit wikipedia once I read some of the biased Wikipedia articles about Scientology but decided to do something about it. Now I am seeing how these editors oppose people like me who try to clean things up (falsehoods/rumors/lies/...unreliable sources) and I want to quit again but I will give things a change and go as far as an arbitration and if things still aren't addressed rationally at that point, then I will quit Wikipedia. -- Nikitchenko 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar should be party to the mediation. [3] -- Nikitchenko 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Tilman should be party to this mediation. He claims there is no dispute with his revert. [4] -- Nikitchenko 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
RESPONSE TO STOLLERY'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO ANTAEUS FELDSPAR'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO VIVALDI'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO FAHRENHEIT451'S STATEMENTS BELOW: Fahrenheit is another user I found to have had incivility problems. His argument below is already covered by my statement above. -- Nikitchenko 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is simple. Nikichenko continues to either remove the following section completely, or add {{ fact}} or {{ dubious}} tags as seen here to the following statement:
Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members. [3] [the following is usually hidden but I'm revealing it to show what detail has gone into the reference]<!-- Quote is in reference: "They [OSA] send PI's (Private investigators) after people, the sue people (they tried to rope me with criminal charges and they really worked hard to bring that about. It didn't work, but it was amazing to me to see how far they will go. They harass people who speak out against Scientology, and their families and sometimes at their work force." -->
The reason he states above for removing it is because it's taken from Ms. Christman's personal website. However, WP:RS states very clearly: "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself." (emphasis mine). The statement above states very clearly that we are writing about a claim made by Tory, the sentence " Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that..." could not be clearer. Thus as we are writing about a claim Tory made, WP:RS stands and her personal website can be used.
That is the only reason I can see for him removing/tagging the statement, and if that is the case then I will cite court documents or similar if necessary. - Gl e n T C (Stollery) 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My statement in this matter will be brief and simple. Here on Wikipedia we operate on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If party A claims X-Y-Z, and party B claims Z-Y-X, we report that party A claims X-Y-Z and party B claims Z-Y-X. It is in fact spelled out that editors are discouraged from doing their own research to try and "determine" whether X-Y-Z or Z-Y-X is "the truth".
Nikitchenko, however, despite having edited on Wikipedia since August of 2005, acts as if he has never understood this principle, despite it being explained to him numerous times. Instead, he acts as if he believes that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be judging the truth or falsity of the claims made by the various parties, and inserting tags in the article in order to communicate their personal judgments to the reader. He reads in the article that party B has claimed Z-Y-X and he inserts a {{ dubious}} tag after it -- not because he in any way doubts or claims to doubt that B claims Z-Y-X, but because he asserts that he doubts Z-Y-X to be true -- and claims to believe that Wikipedia policy supports him inserting the {{ dubious}} tag to inform the world that he is second-guessing these claims.
Clearly this is not the way Wikipedia works, and yet, after a month and a half, Nikitchenko claims that he still thinks that the {{ dubious}} tag exists for the purpose of expressing the relative weight he, himself, chooses to give to claims of various sides. Needless to say, I find that claim of his quite {{ dubious}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought we agreed on a compromise already? What specifically are we talking about now? Is this going to be a never ending time-wasting ordeal?
Nikitchenko is engaging in poor wiki-editing by removing material which has nearly universal consensus for staying in the article. I would encourage Nikitchenko to quit removing this material from the article until there is an agreement among the editors to have it removed. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
From reading the discussion on the OSA article talk page, it looks to me that Nikitchenko is representing the Reliable Source guideline as policy. That is the crux of the continuing edit war. -- Fahrenheit451 01:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
"was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is propaganda. Scarff claims he was directed to murder someone, but it is only his claim, not fact, that "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement". The article was written as if "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" was fact. -- Nikitchenko 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best place to start is from the discussion (now removed) on Redvers talk page. Copy follows:
So in a nutshell, this hinges on the following statement in the article:
Nikitchenko believes according to the above that "Some users are removing my dispute tag after I am saying their use wording is making things look like facts when all they really are is someone's claims (in a legal deposition)." However, if you inspect the talk page Nikitchenko NOT ONCE makes this claim Despite numerous requests as to why he keeps adding the tag.
We are not mind readers. Nikitchenko kept adding the tag without citing why, so, of course, it was going to be removed. Hope this clarifies, and thanks in advance for your consideration. - Gl e n T C 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Basically the article as it was previously stated made it appear as Scarff's testimony was fact because of wording "Much of what is known" and "revelations". Using the word known implies fact and using the word revelations also implies fact. Stollery and the others are using this article to spread propaganda which claims the OSA conspired to murder someone. -- Nikitchenko 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
These are some difficulties which I think are similar to some other disputes at so many Scientology pages. But I would like to state that my biggest problem with the other editors is their removing the dispute tag just because they disagree with the other side's dispute. In my opinion, if it is disputed, it is disputed. Communication should be done on the talk page without trolling, accusations and personal attacks to figure out exactly what the dispute is and resolve the dispute BEFORE removing the tag. These editors didn't allow that process. They remove the dispute tag first and then argue and then you have other editors coming to support their POV and some even starts to make personal attacks. -- Nikitchenko 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away for almost 2 weeks, but Im back for the weekend at least. I am partially happy about the compromise proposed by Vivaldi. There are still subtle problems with the article. and users who keep putting back in what I removed: "personal websites" that do not have "a reputation for for fact-checking and accuracy" See WP:RS and WP:V. Now this group of individuals are saying WP:RS is only guideline and at least one of these people make subtle personal attacks in other scientology related article's discussion space. And the others are now defending the one who made the personal attack instead of discussing content. -- Nikitchenko 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldpsar and Stollery is reverting my edits and not saying why [1] [2]. I clearly explain my deletions of unreliable sources in edit summary and talk page but Glen Stollery says Tory Christman's words can be used in the Office of Special Affairs article. This is against WP:V and WP:RS. -- Nikitchenko 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is copied from the edit summary of when Stollery reverts me today: "I have explained TWICE on the talk page; WP:RS states does not state "only in the article about the person" but writing about the person. We are writing about Tory here! Watch your 3RR". Glen, talk to me in this page, not the editorial summaries. We are not writing about Tory, we are writing about the Office of Special Affairs. I don't like the way you keep reverting my valid changes. I don't think a 3rr should be applied in here so I made a complaint into our mediation page and documenting this. Again, I do not appreciate what you are doing. I will return when a mediator has responded. -- Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. -- Nikitchenko 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely ignorant of the proper procedure of the Mediation process, so apologies in advance if my commenting here is out of line. I basically wanted to note two things: 1. Although the format here is presenting the dispute as being between Nikitchenko and Stollery, it is in fact between several editors who have reverted Nikitchenko's edits. And 2., a glance at the article's talk page will show Nikitchenko's behavior in the matter to be confrontational and uninformational. Several editors have attempted, without success, to get Nikitchenko to give explanations and citations for his position that statements made by one "Garry Scarff" are not proper for the Office of Special Affairs article. wikipediatrix 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I agree with comments of Wikipediatrix above. I asked Nikitchenko what the basis of his dispute with the article is and I never received a response. It is not appropriate to add the dispute tag unless you can at least cite specifically what is disputed. It is also innappropriate to use the dispute tag to point out that you disagree with the truthfulness of what has been verifiably sourced. It is not an editors job to independently determine truth. The only claim in the article is: "Scarff said 'such and such'". You cannot dispute that "Scarff said 'such and such'", because it is easily verifiable. (Scarff has made these claims hundreds of times and he continues to this very day to make the same assertions.) And if you want to dispute the "such and such" part of "Scarff said, 'such and such'", then you must do so in the article, by using sources that are verifiable. I'll be over on the talk page at Talk:Office of Special Affairs if you want to see my proposals. Vivaldi 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My statement in this matter will be brief and simple. Here on Wikipedia we operate on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If party A claims X-Y-Z, and party B claims Z-Y-X, we report that party A claims X-Y-Z and party B claims Z-Y-X. It is in fact spelled out that editors are discouraged from doing their own research to try and "determine" whether X-Y-Z or Z-Y-X is "the truth".
Nikitchenko, however, despite having edited on Wikipedia since August of 2005, acts as if he has never understood this principle, despite it being explained to him numerous times. Instead, he acts as if he believes that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be judging the truth or falsity of the claims made by the various parties, and inserting tags in the article in order to communicate their personal judgments to the reader. He reads in the article that party B has claimed Z-Y-X and he inserts a {{ dubious}} tag after it -- not because he in any way doubts or claims to doubt that B claims Z-Y-X, but because he asserts that he doubts Z-Y-X to be true -- and claims to believe that Wikipedia policy supports him inserting the {{ dubious}} tag to inform the world that he is second-guessing these claims.
Clearly this is not the way Wikipedia works, and yet, after a month and a half, Nikitchenko claims that he still thinks that the {{ dubious}} tag exists for the purpose of expressing the relative weight he, himself, chooses to give to claims of various sides. Needless to say, I find that claim of his quite {{ dubious}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This appeared to be in satisfaction of the initial issue raised by Nikitchenko, but doesn't seem to pertain to the most recent incarnation of this dispute. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV. This is the first time I have ever learned what is disputed, because on the talk page Nikitchenko has thus far failed to point out the basis for the dispute. We can certainly reword the specific sentence "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" and I will attempt to do so on the talk page now. Vivaldi 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That was a great compromise. But now there is more problem and I made a note of it in my statement up above. -- Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We'll evaluate this particular area of compromise after we've worked out the precise problem. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to mediate this case for you. What all parties need to decide is the format that they would like the mediation to take. My preference would be for it to take place on this page, and/or this page's talk page. IRC and e-mail are two other options, if people don't feel happy about everything be availbale to view for the whole community. It's up to you, but like I said my preference would be for the Wikipedia way. -- Wisd e n17 23:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm experienced at mediation and have particular subject-specific knowledge of Scientology (I'm an experienced auditor), and I'm the coordinator down here; if the mediator, or anyone else, would like my assistance, I'm at the service of anyone who would like me to be. All the best, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the long delay in processing this request, and I hope that it is possible we might be able to come to some sort of mutual agreement on how to bring this dispute to a close as expeditiously as possible. It is clear, looking at the matter, there is an actual dispute, but it seems difficult to pin down exactly what is still disputed regarding Office of Special Affairs (where I am assuming the new focus of dispute is). I would be grateful if each party would, in a brief and succinct summary, outline precisely which claims are disputed and where; please make this summary in the Discussion section below. In the meantime, however, I do have some thoughts about the matter, and I would ask the participants to please bear this in mind when summarising their side of the dispute:
If the parties would please try to summarise the points of contention, it would help me get a better idea of where we can proceed (since the discourse above, and on the various talk pages, is entangled and rather difficult to disassemble into specific issues). Once we know which areas are under dispute, we can work on a strategy to remedy those issues to the satisfaction of all parties, and the dispute will be resolved. Thank you very much. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems Nikitchenko ( talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. I spoke to User:MarkGallagher recently about this on IRC, and it seems this user was a sockpuppet of User:AI (who was banned by the arbcom - q.v. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI), and was identified as a sockpuppet by a CheckUser. Since it seems clear the dispute gravitated around this user, and nobody else in this mediation seems to have a problem with following Wikipedia policy on citing sources, I don't really think there's anything more to be done. I think perhaps it might be advisable to all parties, however, to look out for new AI socks assiduously in the future, to avoid wasted time in dealing with them. I apologise for the fact that this mediation has been rather pointless in effect; I should have asked someone to run a CheckUser when I took up the case. But anyway, I'm closing this case now. I would like to thank all the participants in this mediation for their time and effort. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Several editors would like to present a point of view that is negative and based on unproven lies rumors and other false reports. They are mostly unreliable sources and citation is mainly to their personal websites. This is a violation of the definition of reliable source that is referenced by WP:V. These editors claim various reason why these references can be used as a source and I and several others disagree with them. They keep reverting my changes and I am only trying to follow the rules. Usually the editors don't even say why they revert me and with their reverts they remove some of my other changes. It almost seems as if they revert me just because they see my name now. And they are making personal comments and acting very angry and uncivil. I already wanted to quit wikipedia once I read some of the biased Wikipedia articles about Scientology but decided to do something about it. Now I am seeing how these editors oppose people like me who try to clean things up (falsehoods/rumors/lies/...unreliable sources) and I want to quit again but I will give things a change and go as far as an arbitration and if things still aren't addressed rationally at that point, then I will quit Wikipedia. -- Nikitchenko 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar should be party to the mediation. [3] -- Nikitchenko 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Tilman should be party to this mediation. He claims there is no dispute with his revert. [4] -- Nikitchenko 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
RESPONSE TO STOLLERY'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO ANTAEUS FELDSPAR'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO VIVALDI'S STATEMENTS BELOW:
RESPONSE TO FAHRENHEIT451'S STATEMENTS BELOW: Fahrenheit is another user I found to have had incivility problems. His argument below is already covered by my statement above. -- Nikitchenko 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is simple. Nikichenko continues to either remove the following section completely, or add {{ fact}} or {{ dubious}} tags as seen here to the following statement:
Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members. [3] [the following is usually hidden but I'm revealing it to show what detail has gone into the reference]<!-- Quote is in reference: "They [OSA] send PI's (Private investigators) after people, the sue people (they tried to rope me with criminal charges and they really worked hard to bring that about. It didn't work, but it was amazing to me to see how far they will go. They harass people who speak out against Scientology, and their families and sometimes at their work force." -->
The reason he states above for removing it is because it's taken from Ms. Christman's personal website. However, WP:RS states very clearly: "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself." (emphasis mine). The statement above states very clearly that we are writing about a claim made by Tory, the sentence " Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that..." could not be clearer. Thus as we are writing about a claim Tory made, WP:RS stands and her personal website can be used.
That is the only reason I can see for him removing/tagging the statement, and if that is the case then I will cite court documents or similar if necessary. - Gl e n T C (Stollery) 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My statement in this matter will be brief and simple. Here on Wikipedia we operate on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If party A claims X-Y-Z, and party B claims Z-Y-X, we report that party A claims X-Y-Z and party B claims Z-Y-X. It is in fact spelled out that editors are discouraged from doing their own research to try and "determine" whether X-Y-Z or Z-Y-X is "the truth".
Nikitchenko, however, despite having edited on Wikipedia since August of 2005, acts as if he has never understood this principle, despite it being explained to him numerous times. Instead, he acts as if he believes that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be judging the truth or falsity of the claims made by the various parties, and inserting tags in the article in order to communicate their personal judgments to the reader. He reads in the article that party B has claimed Z-Y-X and he inserts a {{ dubious}} tag after it -- not because he in any way doubts or claims to doubt that B claims Z-Y-X, but because he asserts that he doubts Z-Y-X to be true -- and claims to believe that Wikipedia policy supports him inserting the {{ dubious}} tag to inform the world that he is second-guessing these claims.
Clearly this is not the way Wikipedia works, and yet, after a month and a half, Nikitchenko claims that he still thinks that the {{ dubious}} tag exists for the purpose of expressing the relative weight he, himself, chooses to give to claims of various sides. Needless to say, I find that claim of his quite {{ dubious}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought we agreed on a compromise already? What specifically are we talking about now? Is this going to be a never ending time-wasting ordeal?
Nikitchenko is engaging in poor wiki-editing by removing material which has nearly universal consensus for staying in the article. I would encourage Nikitchenko to quit removing this material from the article until there is an agreement among the editors to have it removed. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
From reading the discussion on the OSA article talk page, it looks to me that Nikitchenko is representing the Reliable Source guideline as policy. That is the crux of the continuing edit war. -- Fahrenheit451 01:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)