Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint 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. |
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-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.
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/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that 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 re-factor 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.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Quotes from Talk:Republic 00:44, 20 June 2007:
WHEELER does not feel bound by our effeminate civility standards. Merely censuring him is unlikely to have any effect, unless perhaps he agrees to abide by them. (Which is unlikely; he has not edited for six days, he's gone back to Wikinfo.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Res publica: 8 July 02:01 WHEELER wrote:
He writes as though responding to a similar attack, but in fact he is replying to Nema's post: 23;04 2 July:
and no one had, as far as I can tell, called him a lunatic. The only such suggestion I can find is a similar outburst by WHEELER himself on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. 17:58 19 March 2005 Nema and I (and others) disagree with him on content; but that's another matter.
WHEELER's position appears to be
To support the first assertion, he cites Paul A. Rahe. Republics ancient and modern p. 184 (I cite the one-volume edition; WHEELER uses the three vol. edition from the same publisher in the same year. I, 169)'
But he omits that to get to that claim, Rahe says also that "Sparta is at the same time a closed society and a participatory democracy" (p.19) and that that no Greek city was a state, separate from society. (p.30) This is not the same position; when one has called Sparta an anarchodemocracy, calling her a republic is easy.
A claim which is supported by one modern source, which is being cited for a position with which the author clearly disagrees, comes under the "vanishing minority" section of WP:UNDUE. and I believe Nema, Simon P, and I have been acting in accordance with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Since WHEELER has returned, I have noticed when he showed up on my watchlist; most of these articles have been there since I went through them two years ago. I have also looked at his list of edits, to see what I might have to reply to. When I saw he had created a new article, res divina; I looked at it. It was a dictionary definition ; it still is. I prodded it. I do not think this is stalking, but I will adjust if told otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WHEELER insists on the usage of "republic" he finds in Renaissance sources, where it represents res publica or politeia (or, as with Machiavelli, a foreign word which itself is equivalent to them). This the OED classifies in their def. 1:
1.† The state, the common weal. Obs. 1603 DRAYTON Bar. Wars II. x, Neither yet thinke, by their vnnaturall Fight What the republique suffred them among. 1651 HOBBES Govt. & Soc. v. §5. 78 Those men are of most trouble to the Republique, who haue most leasure to be idle. 1684 Scanderbeg Rediv. iii. 41 The Republick might be highly endangered by an Inter-Regnum.
Please note that this is marked as obsolere, and last cited from 1684.( #Assertion 3: the term republic in English abridges citations up to 1976) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to make every piece of evidence I submit part of an accusation, I think that's unhelpful to the quest for a friendly atmosphere. If I believe there are findings of fact the ArbCom needs to make, I shall propose them as such. The evidence I submit here includes any and all edits I feel the ArbCom should be particularly aware of, so they can draw their own conclusions if they so wish. I may also add my own impressions of fact here even if I do not ask the ArbCom to make such findings. Contextual evidence which I feel may be of use to the ArbCom I shall place here (Added: 16:47, 29 July 2007).
I am prepared to apologise if I have come across as condescending [2] or stubborn [3] on occasion. My intention has not been to insult or incite, but to improve WP, and I try to include constructive suggestions whenever I make criticisms of other users' approach/edits [4] [5]. In the same vein, I welcome criticism from the Arbitration Committee, as I don't want to have to bother you again.
It may have been a poor judgement on my behalf to try to advise WHEELER given that his viewpoints and mine are liable to clash considerably. I try to assume that everyone is approaching the truth from a different angle, and that building up from common ground is more productive than fighting over differences. I initially hoped he might be willing to consider friendly advice from a classicist, having read that this was one of the problems he had with WP [6] (this section has since been removed [7] - hopefully, this is WHEELER realising that the WP policy of encouraging all interested contributors to have their say is a good thing, rather than realising that it questions his own credibility). At one point, he seemed to take my advice well [8], but this did not persist.
WHEELER cites the diff I highlighted in my initial statement requesting Arbitration as an example of a hidden goad, namely in the passage: "Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting." (WHEELER's emphasis). ArbCom can draw their own conclusions, that's why I included the diff. But I did indeed write this knowing that he had submitted his own article to a (new and not particularly picky) online journal on Sparta. However the sources I was talking about in this instance did not include his article - if you continue reading the diff, you'll see I'm referring mainly to his use of Michael Crawford's book. I then made a general point "The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context" - I took care not to say "All", as I know there is at least one source he has read correctly, namely his own writing. (As an aside, I'm quite amused that he should complain about me for pointing out his out-of-context use of sources... by taking my criticism out of context!)
Although a number of accusations levelled against PMAnderson are demonstrably false from diffs I presented to WHEELER here after a complaint on his own talk page, while composing this, I set out to find evidence for my draft statement "PMAnderson does not seem to me to be stalking WHEELER [...] I suspect he merely has a great many articles on his watchlist", and found the following (I give the first edit of the second editor and the last edit of the first editor before the first edit of the second editor; entries sorted by date of PMAnderson's edit):
Despite the fact that (contrary to my recollection at the time of writing the draft) WHEELER's edits tend to precede PMAnderson's, given the contexts of most I don't think this is actually stalking - though ArbCom may find otherwise - but I do feel it would be dishonest not to give the results of my line of enquiry, which on first appearances would seem to indicate stalking.
I am, however, concerned PMAnderson may be dismissing WHEELER's contributions prejudicially, rather than on their own merits, based on this comment on my talk page.
I find WHEELER's use of sources incautious at best. While his enthusiasm to provide references is commendable, the addition of material to Wikipedia with attributions that do not support the text constitutes a disruption that is considerably more difficult to root out than that of many vandals. His unreliability as a referencer may well be innocent, but it is still a weakness that needs to be accounted for, in the same way as an editor unable to spell or punctuate ought to avoid 'correcting' spelling and grammar.
I would also like to take this opportunity to bring up a number of WHEELER's talk page habits:
Although I hope WHEELER will take note of these problems as I point them out and ArbCom remedies will not be needed, I notice that he has continued pretty much unabated despite previous warnings from ArbCom on some of these issues never mind anyone else, so am very concerned by his intractability.
I think this deserves its own section.
Shortly after the RFAR was filed, a number of anonymous comments were posted to Talk:List of republics. I have since decided to query them on WHOIS to try to work out which is which.
A number of things struck me about these edits at the time, particularly:
I did not want to denounce them as meatpuppets, for fear of biting newcomers, and indeed I do not wish make such an assertion now, for lack of direct evidence. However, I believe the edits are strange enough to warrant inspection by ArbCom.
Wikipedia polices are not being followed in regard to all the articles that relate to republic.
Remedy--How about someone enforcing Wikipedia policy around here and truly allow for NPOV!
Given that the case will turn at least partially on the issue of WP:NOR, admins might find the following useful.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the following definitions of res publica (pp. 1635-6):
# Activilities affecting the whole people, affairs of state, etc.; (also pl. in sim. sense). b (in phr. rem publicam genere or administrare; often used of generals, etc., conducting a war). c a particular item of public business.
- The welfare of the state, the public good; e re publica, in the national interest. b (also pl.) the resources of the state.
- The body politic, the state (in a place specifid or implied; esp. w. ref. to Rome). b a particular instance of state, esp. w. ref. to its constitution; app. also, the constitution itself.
- (pregn.) A state in which all citizens participate, free state (opp. tyranny, etc.)
Liddel-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (which is the authoritative Greek dictionary) gives this definition of πολιτεία (p. 1434):
I 1condition and rights of a citizen, citizenship; 2 the daily life of citizen; life, living; 3 body of citizens; 4 = Lat. civitas in geographical sense.
II 1 government, administration; course of policy; pl. acts of policy; 2 tenure of pulbic office;
III 1 civil polity, constitution of a state; 2 esp. republican govenerment, free common-wealth
The Oxford English dictionary offers several meanings for "republic", but especially notable is this:
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
- 1604 R. CAWDREY Table Alph., Republike, a Commonwealth. a1626 BACON Ch. Controv. Wks. 1879 I. 347 It may be, in civil states, a republic is a better policy than a kingdom. etc.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint 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. |
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-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.
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/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that 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 re-factor 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.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Quotes from Talk:Republic 00:44, 20 June 2007:
WHEELER does not feel bound by our effeminate civility standards. Merely censuring him is unlikely to have any effect, unless perhaps he agrees to abide by them. (Which is unlikely; he has not edited for six days, he's gone back to Wikinfo.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Res publica: 8 July 02:01 WHEELER wrote:
He writes as though responding to a similar attack, but in fact he is replying to Nema's post: 23;04 2 July:
and no one had, as far as I can tell, called him a lunatic. The only such suggestion I can find is a similar outburst by WHEELER himself on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. 17:58 19 March 2005 Nema and I (and others) disagree with him on content; but that's another matter.
WHEELER's position appears to be
To support the first assertion, he cites Paul A. Rahe. Republics ancient and modern p. 184 (I cite the one-volume edition; WHEELER uses the three vol. edition from the same publisher in the same year. I, 169)'
But he omits that to get to that claim, Rahe says also that "Sparta is at the same time a closed society and a participatory democracy" (p.19) and that that no Greek city was a state, separate from society. (p.30) This is not the same position; when one has called Sparta an anarchodemocracy, calling her a republic is easy.
A claim which is supported by one modern source, which is being cited for a position with which the author clearly disagrees, comes under the "vanishing minority" section of WP:UNDUE. and I believe Nema, Simon P, and I have been acting in accordance with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Since WHEELER has returned, I have noticed when he showed up on my watchlist; most of these articles have been there since I went through them two years ago. I have also looked at his list of edits, to see what I might have to reply to. When I saw he had created a new article, res divina; I looked at it. It was a dictionary definition ; it still is. I prodded it. I do not think this is stalking, but I will adjust if told otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WHEELER insists on the usage of "republic" he finds in Renaissance sources, where it represents res publica or politeia (or, as with Machiavelli, a foreign word which itself is equivalent to them). This the OED classifies in their def. 1:
1.† The state, the common weal. Obs. 1603 DRAYTON Bar. Wars II. x, Neither yet thinke, by their vnnaturall Fight What the republique suffred them among. 1651 HOBBES Govt. & Soc. v. §5. 78 Those men are of most trouble to the Republique, who haue most leasure to be idle. 1684 Scanderbeg Rediv. iii. 41 The Republick might be highly endangered by an Inter-Regnum.
Please note that this is marked as obsolere, and last cited from 1684.( #Assertion 3: the term republic in English abridges citations up to 1976) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to make every piece of evidence I submit part of an accusation, I think that's unhelpful to the quest for a friendly atmosphere. If I believe there are findings of fact the ArbCom needs to make, I shall propose them as such. The evidence I submit here includes any and all edits I feel the ArbCom should be particularly aware of, so they can draw their own conclusions if they so wish. I may also add my own impressions of fact here even if I do not ask the ArbCom to make such findings. Contextual evidence which I feel may be of use to the ArbCom I shall place here (Added: 16:47, 29 July 2007).
I am prepared to apologise if I have come across as condescending [2] or stubborn [3] on occasion. My intention has not been to insult or incite, but to improve WP, and I try to include constructive suggestions whenever I make criticisms of other users' approach/edits [4] [5]. In the same vein, I welcome criticism from the Arbitration Committee, as I don't want to have to bother you again.
It may have been a poor judgement on my behalf to try to advise WHEELER given that his viewpoints and mine are liable to clash considerably. I try to assume that everyone is approaching the truth from a different angle, and that building up from common ground is more productive than fighting over differences. I initially hoped he might be willing to consider friendly advice from a classicist, having read that this was one of the problems he had with WP [6] (this section has since been removed [7] - hopefully, this is WHEELER realising that the WP policy of encouraging all interested contributors to have their say is a good thing, rather than realising that it questions his own credibility). At one point, he seemed to take my advice well [8], but this did not persist.
WHEELER cites the diff I highlighted in my initial statement requesting Arbitration as an example of a hidden goad, namely in the passage: "Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting." (WHEELER's emphasis). ArbCom can draw their own conclusions, that's why I included the diff. But I did indeed write this knowing that he had submitted his own article to a (new and not particularly picky) online journal on Sparta. However the sources I was talking about in this instance did not include his article - if you continue reading the diff, you'll see I'm referring mainly to his use of Michael Crawford's book. I then made a general point "The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context" - I took care not to say "All", as I know there is at least one source he has read correctly, namely his own writing. (As an aside, I'm quite amused that he should complain about me for pointing out his out-of-context use of sources... by taking my criticism out of context!)
Although a number of accusations levelled against PMAnderson are demonstrably false from diffs I presented to WHEELER here after a complaint on his own talk page, while composing this, I set out to find evidence for my draft statement "PMAnderson does not seem to me to be stalking WHEELER [...] I suspect he merely has a great many articles on his watchlist", and found the following (I give the first edit of the second editor and the last edit of the first editor before the first edit of the second editor; entries sorted by date of PMAnderson's edit):
Despite the fact that (contrary to my recollection at the time of writing the draft) WHEELER's edits tend to precede PMAnderson's, given the contexts of most I don't think this is actually stalking - though ArbCom may find otherwise - but I do feel it would be dishonest not to give the results of my line of enquiry, which on first appearances would seem to indicate stalking.
I am, however, concerned PMAnderson may be dismissing WHEELER's contributions prejudicially, rather than on their own merits, based on this comment on my talk page.
I find WHEELER's use of sources incautious at best. While his enthusiasm to provide references is commendable, the addition of material to Wikipedia with attributions that do not support the text constitutes a disruption that is considerably more difficult to root out than that of many vandals. His unreliability as a referencer may well be innocent, but it is still a weakness that needs to be accounted for, in the same way as an editor unable to spell or punctuate ought to avoid 'correcting' spelling and grammar.
I would also like to take this opportunity to bring up a number of WHEELER's talk page habits:
Although I hope WHEELER will take note of these problems as I point them out and ArbCom remedies will not be needed, I notice that he has continued pretty much unabated despite previous warnings from ArbCom on some of these issues never mind anyone else, so am very concerned by his intractability.
I think this deserves its own section.
Shortly after the RFAR was filed, a number of anonymous comments were posted to Talk:List of republics. I have since decided to query them on WHOIS to try to work out which is which.
A number of things struck me about these edits at the time, particularly:
I did not want to denounce them as meatpuppets, for fear of biting newcomers, and indeed I do not wish make such an assertion now, for lack of direct evidence. However, I believe the edits are strange enough to warrant inspection by ArbCom.
Wikipedia polices are not being followed in regard to all the articles that relate to republic.
Remedy--How about someone enforcing Wikipedia policy around here and truly allow for NPOV!
Given that the case will turn at least partially on the issue of WP:NOR, admins might find the following useful.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the following definitions of res publica (pp. 1635-6):
# Activilities affecting the whole people, affairs of state, etc.; (also pl. in sim. sense). b (in phr. rem publicam genere or administrare; often used of generals, etc., conducting a war). c a particular item of public business.
- The welfare of the state, the public good; e re publica, in the national interest. b (also pl.) the resources of the state.
- The body politic, the state (in a place specifid or implied; esp. w. ref. to Rome). b a particular instance of state, esp. w. ref. to its constitution; app. also, the constitution itself.
- (pregn.) A state in which all citizens participate, free state (opp. tyranny, etc.)
Liddel-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (which is the authoritative Greek dictionary) gives this definition of πολιτεία (p. 1434):
I 1condition and rights of a citizen, citizenship; 2 the daily life of citizen; life, living; 3 body of citizens; 4 = Lat. civitas in geographical sense.
II 1 government, administration; course of policy; pl. acts of policy; 2 tenure of pulbic office;
III 1 civil polity, constitution of a state; 2 esp. republican govenerment, free common-wealth
The Oxford English dictionary offers several meanings for "republic", but especially notable is this:
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
- 1604 R. CAWDREY Table Alph., Republike, a Commonwealth. a1626 BACON Ch. Controv. Wks. 1879 I. 347 It may be, in civil states, a republic is a better policy than a kingdom. etc.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.