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/?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.

The 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.

A couple of preliminaries. Firstly, this case involves a considerable amount of background. Therefore, although I was assured by ArbCom Clerk Flonight that the Evidence page would provide ample space, I'll need to link to existing material in order to avoid repetition. Secondly, this case is bottomheavy with self-appointed "involved parties" who were not originally involved with the incidents it addresses, but who apparently wish to continue various arguments in which they became involved at the Pseudoscience RfA (where I originally tried to have these issues addressed). Most of their critiques are baseless, irrelevant, and personally motivated. Unfortunately, answering them will take yet more space. I will try to keep my responses as succinct as possible without inviting anyone to mistake out-of-context irrelevancies for substance, or repetition for relevance.

ScienceApologist disruptively edits Christopher Michael Langan, violating WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING

ScienceApologist has been using one of CML's affiliations to falsely paint him as an "ID theorist" and otherwise disparage or trivialize him and his work, thereby attracting his fellow ID critics to the article for disruptive purposes.

Examples: 1 - ScienceApologist inserts a gratuitous association with a noted ID advocate personally unconnected to CML; 2 - ScienceApologist implies that CML advocates ID by association; 3 - ScienceApologist opinionatively characterizes one of CML's affiliations as an "ID think tank"; 4 - ScienceApologist removes mention of the publisher of Uncommon Dissent in favor of an explicit "ID connection" through its editor; 5 - Echoing previous false accusations in violation of WP:AGF, ScienceApologist implies that Mega Foundation archives may be misrepresentations or forgeries (see edit summary); 6 - ScienceApologist describes an accurate and informative description of Langan's work as "fancruft" and wipes it out; 7 - ScienceApologist uses the CML bio to express his unverified personal belief that CML never "discusses", but only "offers opinions"; 8 - ScienceApologist insinuates, strictly by association, that CML is not just an "ID proponent", but an active member of the "ID movement".

ScienceApologist violates WP:HARASS through the unauthorized disclosure of personal information

Examples: 9 - ScienceApologist posts his uninvited speculation on my personal identity on my talk page; 10 - ScienceApologist posts his uninvited speculation on my personal identity on his own talk page

ScienceApologist disruptively edited the CTMU article, violating WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING

To save space, I respectfully refer the Arbitrators to this evidence presented by Tim Smith. Tim has done an admirable job of sorting through the archives, finding exemplary diffs, and characterizing the behavior of ScienceApologist toward the CTMU article.

FeloniousMonk openly abuses his administrative authority

FeloniousMonk has openly abused his administrative prerogatives by unblocking the previously blocked single-purpose account of an obvious troll calling itself "Hal(dane) Fisher". For recent examples of Fisher's malicious activity, note the edit summaries here, and don't be afraid to ask the obvious question: what kind of administrator overrules another administrator to unblock a flaming miscreant whose sole purpose is to contemptuously and relentlessly violate Wikipedia policies including WP:NPA, WP:LIVING, and WP:HARASS? A clue can be found here, where FeloniousMonk hints that his strategy is to make so much noise, and wreak so much havoc, that the arbitrators give up, assume that both sides are equally guilty, and declare "a pox on both [their] houses". I trust that the Arbitrators can see through this transparent ruse, and recognize the unnecessary liability to which manipulative rogue administrators like FeloniousMonk heedlessly expose the Project.

Since attacks on the CML bio began last July, DrL has valiantly tried to hold the line against violations of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:LIVING. A close examination of her edits reveals that had she not been willing to do this, the article would quickly have degenerated to an exercise in anti-ID scapegoating against its subject. Indeed, this is precisely what FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, and Jim62sch, together comprising 60% of WikiProject Intelligent Design, have recently been doing to the article, along with ScienceApologist and single-purpose account "Haldane Fisher". DrL, explicitly collaborating with yet another anti-ID administrator, has again tried to hold the line, making minor edits one at a time in an effort to avoid wholesale reverts and other provocative tactics. But instead of reacting with appreciation, cooperation, and collegiality, FeloniousMonk - a Wikipedia administrator who apparently has a reciprocal "I'll-block-yours-if-you-block-mine" agreement with one or more other administrators [ 11 12 13; all three of these blocks occurred within one 5 hour, 4-block span] - had her blocked for 24 hours on the 3rr rule. When she asked for reconsideration, the blocking admin (who had acted without question on FeloniousMonk's complaint) simply linked to the complaint without further explanation. 14 This was quickly followed by blame-the-victim comments from administrator JoshuaZ, who had falsely accused me of violating WP:AUTO by making "numerous edits" to the Langan bio 15 (I actually made only two minor edits), and - what a surprise! - officially authorized troll accounts "Hal Fisher" and "Haldane Fisher". Fisher's remark: "It seems that the rats are trying to desert the ID ark after Kitzmiller, eh?" 16 (Note the attendant violations of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS.)

FeloniousMonk has now had DrL blocked on 3RR for the second time on Christopher Michael Langan, after the article was locked (i.e., punitively rather than preemptively). It is highly instructive to review the edits on the strength of which this request was made: A, B, C, D. Respectively, these edits consist of: (A) moving, not removing, a sentence; (B) restoring a relevant citation to a valid source which had previously been removed without explanation by FeloniousMonk; (C) restoring additional longstanding material that had been removed without explanation by FeloniousMonk; (D) restoring a crucial longstanding primary resource removed by User:Kenosis under the following edit summary: "Revert to third previous edit by DrL (Mr. Langan's wife)." (Note the deliberate harassment by attempted disclosure of personal information against DrL, whose edits are neutral and warranted by WP.) FeloniousMonk is evidently blurring the distinction between edits and reverts, treating any edit as a "revert" provided merely that it was made by DrL, and also seems to have determined that "3RR" really means "0 or 1 RR" (for DrL, especially when he plans to ban her from editing an article that he has come to own and doesn't want her to respond). The same considerations apply here as apply above. How can someone who abuses the rules be trusted to neutrally enforce the rules?

Evidence of editorial and administrative bias and collusion

This RfAr deals not only with repetitive, systematic personal harassment against me (and now DrL), but with concerted attacks against Wikipedia bio subject Christopher Michael Langan and his CTMU. Certain editors have attempted to equate the CTMU with Intelligent Design, and accuse its author of being an "ID advocate/proponent/supporter/theorist".

1. Although Intelligent Design theory is frequently attacked as "unscientific", it purports to be a theory of empirical science. This claim implies that ID theory is to be guided by sequential empirical observations according to the scientific method, e.g., by probability calculations on empirical data. Any theory which does not share this claim cannot pass for "ID theory" under its actual definition. Here is a precise explanation of the difference between the CTMU and ID theory: 17. Here is the rejection of this explanation by a member of WikiProject ID: 18. Note that whereas the explanation itself is clinical and precise, its rejection quickly dissolves into a sarcastic tirade against ID.

2. An "ID supporter/advocate/proponent" is somebody who actively embraces ID and thereby participates in the ID movement. This cannot be established by, e.g., accepting a no-strings-attached fellowship in a putative scholarly organization, or attending a single conference by invitation to present a paper on a topic other than ID itself. One would instead need (e.g.) a personal statement by the subject himself, or clear evidence of focused advocacy or sustained involvement in the surrounding political controversy. On the other hand, to claim that person X must be an "ID advocate" because some participant on an anti-ID bulletin board says so is a blatant violation of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Yet this is exactly what we are seeing. 19, 20, 21

When such violations emanate disproportionately from certain minority sectors of the WP community, we are entitled to draw the obvious inferences regarding systematic bias and/or collusion. For example, if a higher-than-expected percentage come from WikiProject ID, or WikiProject Pseudoscience, or are imported from philosophically committed sites like The Brights.net, we can infer a relationship on that basis. Similarly, if many of those who have involved themselves in the CTMU/CML/Asmodeus affair are Wikipedia administrators who sometimes make threats or otherwise abuse their authority in the process, we may infer a relationship there as well.

WikiProject ID consist of five (5) members, 80% of whom have recently edited Christopher Michael Langan and/or its talk page. At nearly all times when the article is being actively edited, all but at most one of the editors is an ID critic and/or openly hostile to Langan and the CTMU...Rubin, Kenosis, ScienceApologist, Fisher, and so on, all the way back through Byrgenwulf, who started the snowball rolling with his WP-violating accusations of "crank!" and "pseudoscience!". Only one editor, DrL, struggles to maintain balance when she is present. Had DrL's hands been tied, this article would now be a disjointed, inaccurate, disparaging diatribe, and Langan a defamation victim. To make absolutely certain of this, let's review the input of various members of WikiProject ID and other ID critics and pseudoskeptics.

FeloniousMonk at Christopher Michael Langan: adds erroneous category "ID" - 22; moves false statement re "ID advocacy" up front - 23; removes various legitimate sources - 24; attempts to marginalize Langan - 25; falsely pronounces Langan a "self-proclaimed expert" - 26; inserts irrelevant out-of-context reference - 27; restores attempt at marginalization, false claim of ID advocacy, irrelevant reference, and puts "ID advocacy" ahead of basic biographical information - 28; replaces "self-proclaimed expert" with "self-styled expert" (both of which are false and demeaning) - 29; reverts to his own version again, complete with errors and distortions - 30; replaces "philosophers and scientists" with inaccurate "fellow ID proponents", and verified "CTMU presentation" with false "ID presentation" - 31; removes important well-sourced content ( Popular Science article, PCID paper), overemphasizes ID connection, and inserts Mrs. Langan's maiden name while labeling her an "ID advocate" - 32; re-emphasizes ID connection in two places, calls Mrs. Langan an "ID advocate" and cites her as a "collaborator" on PCID paper, apparently to double the input from "ID advocates" - 33; demotes CTMU from a "theory" to "a concept [Langan] developed and promotes" - 34

...and at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan:

jim62sch at Christopher Michael Langan: reverts DrL's step-by-step corrections of FM's misrepresentations - 35; reverts DrL's patient attempt to work out an editing compromise with ID critic Arthur Rubin - 36; replaces false "ID presentation" allegation while deleting well-sourced content - 37

...and at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan:

Guettarda at Christopher Michael Langan: removes "sodomy" vandalism by a fellow ID critic (surprisingly, a constructive edit) - 38; reverts to version favored by FeloniousMonk and jim62sch - 39;

...and at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan:

KillerChihuahua at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan: asserts that Panda's Thumb, a notoriously partisan Internet bulletin board which baselessly conflates ID with creationism and aggressively promotes its anti-ID viewpoint in the highly politicized ID-evolution controversy, is a "valid source" regarding CML and his work - 40

Pseudoscience RfAr: Primary Statement (giving some technical background on the CTMU which was obviously lost on many of its "expert" detractors including ScienceApologist, along with a brief description of dynamic solidarity among ID critics here at Wikipedia)

CTMU AfD (a disruptive affair rigged in advance by means of deliberate misrepresentation and selective recruitment of participants hostile to the topic)

CTMU DR (another POV-driven travesty whose result was fixed in advance by means of selective recruitment of like-minded participants hostile to the topic)

Asmodeus RfC: Response of Asmodeus (describing the first philosophically-driven attacks against Christopher Michael Langan and his work here at Wikipedia, and generally describing the weeks and months of vicious harassment which followed)

CTMU dialogue (in which a highly aggressive Wikipedia "science expert" insisted on a debate regarding the allegedly "pseudoscientific" CTMU and was caught in various errors, technical and otherwise)

Rebuttals

FeloniousMonk: Wikipedia Anti-ID Watchdog FeloniousMonk has presented what looks at first glance like a great deal of evidence. But evidence of what? Evidence that I violated WP:NPOV, or secondarily, WP:AUTO or WP:COI? I know that I've been accused of violating these policies and guidelines, but actual evidence that I've done so appears to be virtually nonexistent. Anyone who doubts this need merely take a look at my article edits in context. I maintain that they are justified and consistent with policy, and that whatever FeloniousMonk's evidence supports, it doesn't support his charges against me. To make sure of this, let's have a look at the articles I've edited.

Christopher Michael Langan: I've edited this article exactly twice, once to correct a misspelling and once to remove irrelevant information inserted by ScienceApologist to misleadingly misrepresent Langan's work in violation of plain fact - Langan in fact embraces evolution - and WP:LIVING.

Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe: When that article existed, I did no editing on it until the very end, when it was subject to constant attack and in need of protection (and even then gave it far less than was justified, going out of my way to preserve the essence of certain criticisms that had been made against it).

Academic Elitism: I'm not the one claiming to have academic credentials, and thus have nothing to gain by asserting or denying the existence of academic elitism or offering arguments for or against it. Unfortunately, other editors involved with that article cannot say the same of themselves.

Crank (person): I'm not the one who runs "crank.net" or authored the "crank index" or any other work for or against cranks, and thus have nothing to gain or lose here.

Uncommon Dissent: I edited this article only because Arthur Rubin, while admitting that the topic is notable, had quietly attached a speedy delete tag threatening to delete it in five (5) days unless somebody "improved" it. I therefore added a short, neutrally-worded content section as explicitly requested. Since that time, all I've done is correct inaccuracies and imbalances and request citations establishing the relevance of information added by others.

FeloniousMonk's accusations regarding WP:CIV are incomprehensible as well. When somebody is being pursued around Wikipedia, personally attacked, and harassed for personal information, it is inappropriate to focus on his corrective, defensive, and perfectly civil responses while utterly ignoring context and causation.

Prosfilaes: Prosfilaes is another latecomer to this case whose most important messages to Wikipedia seem to be these: (1) that academic credentials are a sine qua non of significant intellectual production; (2) that academia is the source and proving grounds of so many notable ideas that ideas from other sources, or which have been noticed in the mass media rather than academic journals, can simply be discounted (including great ideas that originated before academia existed); (3) that even though he proudly claims to have a bachelor's degree, he can remove other people's edits to articles like Academic Elitism and still claim that it is only they who are violating WP:COI (regardless of whether or not they have academic credentials of their own); (4) that since, in his personal experience, a college education is practically free to deserving individuals (e.g., himself), even those with extremely limited financial resources can afford academic credentials and should either buy a set forthwith, or forever relinquish any claim to notability in the intellectual sphere; and (5) that despite what psychologists may happen to think, measurable intelligence is all but irrelevant to the solution of important problems.

I'm sure that if I've made any mistakes or left anything out, Prosfilaes will "set the record straight" in a trice (according to his own inimitable way of looking at things, which I don't pretend to understand). I'm equally sure that a close look at Prosfilaes' statements here and elsewhere will lay to rest any doubts about why I hesitate to engage him/her in further dialogue, or go any further into his views. In any case, I frankly admit that I'm unable to see the merit or relevance of his/her POV and associated complaints, and can only observe that they are not rightfully supported by any aspect of Wikipedia policy.

Regarding Prosfilaes' latest assertions: (1) Because academia is a closed, financially-driven network of institutions whose self-interested graduates and employees enjoy special advantages - prestige, higher salaries, special access to various kinds of "skilled" employment, and so on - it can indeed give rise to conflicts of interest. On the other hand, because there are no social or economic advantages in not having academic credentials, COI cannot arise (as opposed to discrimination, which can). Therefore, WP:COI applies to those with academic credentials in a way that does not extend to those without them, at least regarding such topics as academic elitism. (2) Attempting to use a bio subject's affiliations to characterize his works or beliefs is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Affiliations can be mentioned, but never in a way that diverges from the subject himself, and never to misclassify a theory as "ID", or its author as an "ID theorist" or "ID proponent", in violation of fact. The CTMU is an impartial synthesis which does not take sides in the ID controversy.]

Art LaPella: I'm afraid that I'm having a very hard time understanding anything that Art LaPella writes. It might be me, but I seriously doubt it. Since I don't know where most of his statements come from or what they mean, I don't know how to counter his "evidence". (Score one for Art.) [As for Art's tenuous suspicions regarding "legal threats", I'm similarly at a loss. I simply can't follow his thought processes, and will therefore refrain from speculating on etiology.]

JBKramer: This editor's "evidence", and the manner in which it presented, speak for themselves.

I do not intend to participate in this RFAr as I feel it is a waste of time to allow a user who makes this edit, and then gets sooooo offended that someone called it a violation of WP:POINT in an edit summary here and here merits any of our attention. Hillman's (deleted, but obviously accessible to arbiters) dig page should be read by each and every one of the arbitors. It lays out a compelling case that Asmodeus is Christopher Michael Langan. All of his edits have been to fluff Langan or to argue points that Langan argues (like against "Darwinism" or for his theory of the universe). There is no reason to keep this editor around, and that this was allowed to escalate to an RFAr demonstrates that administrators around here need to grow a pair. Asmodeus is Langan, and all of his whining is just him pissed that WP:SPADE. JBKramer 12:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

User has left

Having recieved a credible death threat in an unrelated matter, I can no longer reasonably edit wikipedia. JBKramer 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus's obsessed with real identity

His first edit to the AFD for CTMU was an attack on the real-life identity of byrgenwulf. An edit in the Pseudoscience RfA accuses me of being "an anonymous "virtual expert" with no real-world credibility". He says that people like Lagan and Lerner have to be here so "opinionated, anonymous members of the wikiproletariat don't mangle their ideas and reputations beyond all recognition" (emphasis mine) [2] .-- Prosfilaes 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what's going on here--maybe some deleted history?--but [3] shows User:DrL posting a message signed by User:Asmodeus that uses Byrgenwulf's real name. -- Prosfilaes 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus thinks CTMU has a moral right to be in Wikipedia

[4] is a treasure trove. Asmodeus holds that some people are "tied down here by the necessity of ensuring that opinionated, anonymous members of the wikiproletariat don't mangle their ideas and reputations beyond all recognition", an openly elitist statement. He says "Everyone has a natural right not to be unjustly maligned or misrepresented, and this clearly supersedes the "right" of the ideological crusaders, philosophical axe-grinders, and amorphous how-do-we-feel-today crowd to gnaw away at their lives, ideas, and reputations like a queenless termite colony. This applies not only to what Wikipedia includes, but what it excludes, insofar as excluding one otherwise-notable idea in favor of countervailing ideas amounts to its trivialization.", which is also highly elitist, and also claims that CTMU has the right to be in Wikipedia (which is obvious in the context of immediately preceding posts and the posts in the talk page.)-- Prosfilaes 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal to Asmodeus

Asmodeus's statements of my "most important messages to Wikipedia" completely distorts the statements I made to the point of strawmen and, more importantly, represents some random statements made in discussion as if they were things I considered important messages. (In reality, my most important messages to Wikipedia and Wikipedians include that sometimes, when things aren't going your way, you need to let the issue drop, and STOP VANDALISING midget, YOU BLOODY IDIOTS!) I will ignore those misstatements, except for #3, as ungermane to the issue, but will explain more if anyone cares. As for #3, ostentatiously uncitied arguments were being added to Academic elitism. Upon deleting them, I was accused of WP:COI because I have an academic degree. I merely pointed out that if having an academic degree were enough to trigger WP:COI, so would having no academic degree and having a theory in an academic field that was being ignored by academia. [5]

Christopher Michael Langan and ID

Asmodeus claims that "Langan in fact embraces evolution". However, a man is known by the company he keeps, and he is a co-author of "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" and a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, an group of intelligent design proponents. (See Christopher Michael Langan.) It is a matter of neutral fact, that whatever his personal opinions are, he has chosen to associate himself with intelligent design, and stating that is not ipso facto POV.-- Prosfilaes 14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I can't believe we're arguing about this. Langan made choices that painted him as a ID proponent. The description of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design that was in the Langan article before ScienceApologist changed it was worthless for the reader, and the article on the society has an ID box on the page and clearly and unreservedly states "The organization promotes intelligent design, the controversial idea that...". There's nothing opinionated about using that to describe the society on Langan's page.-- Prosfilaes 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, ID is creationism. It's listed on the Creationism sidebar Template:Creationism2; it's been ruled by a court as creationism (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) and the Discovery Institute that "all of [intelligent design's] leading proponents are affiliated with" ( Intelligent Design, first paragraph) produced a document stating that their goal was "[t]o defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies."-- Prosfilaes 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The pot calls the kettle black

Near the end of this section, Asmodeus argues that CTMU can't be pseudoscience because it's philosophy, not science. Therefore editors were fraudulently drawn to the Articles for Deletion hearing, discrediting the entire Wikipedian due process and everyone involved. Actually, CTMU] claims to reduce the philosophy of science to computer code, that is, to science. So to argue it can't be pseudoscience because it's philosophy, is like arguing creationism can't be pseudoscience because it's religion. To argue further that this pretty much proves the rest of the world is crazy, shows an inability to compromise that makes ScienceApologist look like Strawberry Shortcake. Therefore, I conclude this arbitration was probably accepted to investigate Asmodeus, not ScienceApologist. So I ask JBKramer to come back. Art LaPella 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Credibility

Now Asmodeus claims "I'm having a very hard time understanding anything that Art LaPella writes", despite the exchange that ended here. Assuming arbitrators can understand what I wrote above, they may draw conclusions about Asmodeus's credibility. Art LaPella 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Legal threat

Perhaps the arbitrators noticed this and wisely chose not to say anything. I'm not sure. But the last sentence of [6] could be construed as a legal threat. Art LaPella 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Chutzpah

Just in case anyone missed this example of Asmodeus's chutzpah: [7]. The N key wisecrack is funny but very unnecessarily hostile, and it comes 7 words before he cites WP:CIV ! Art LaPella 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Aggressive, uninformed editing and reverting by ScienceApologist

I first posted this evidence to Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; since it is also relevant here, I'm reposting it, with minor tweaks.

What follows is an account of ScienceApologist's behavior at an article about a philosophical theory which he claimed could be categorized under "pseudoscience". See also Asmodeus's evidence here.

As background, the theory in question—the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU—has received mention from Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, 20/20, and other mainstream media sources. The article I started in September 2005 (currently a redirect to the theory's author, Christopher Michael Langan) proceeded mostly peacefully until July 2006, which was when ScienceApologist first edited it. The article described the history of the theory, overviewed its structure, and summarized its take on various philosophical topics. As well as being referenced, accurate with respect to its subject, and footnoted right down to the page number, the article took care to qualify the claims of the theory to the theorist, presenting Langan's arguments rather than asserting them.

ScienceApologist summarizes his first edit as "cleaning up the article". What he has actually done is to delete nearly all of the content. At this point, he had never edited the article or its talk page; this edit was made out of the blue, with no prior discussion.

He then announces that he has "removed a lot of gibberish that came across as advertising the theory rather than explaining it". Not only does his version omit nearly all of the article's content, reducing it to a series of disconnected snippets and rendering it utterly useless as an explanation of the theory, but it attributes to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes.

The deleted text is quickly restored by another user, who points out that other editors are working on the material and requests that ScienceApologist refrain from massive, unconstructive deletion.

ScienceApologist's professed "favorite conflict resolution-style" is WP:BRD. Having made a bold change and been reverted, the next step is to reach agreement through discussion; BRD says emphatically: "DO NOT Revert back". Nonetheless, and despite talk-page objections ( [8] [9]), he reverts back, again erasing the bulk of the article.

He then labels supporters of the longstanding version a "group of MENSA-allies". That version is soon restored, and he is again asked to refrain from massive deletion so that the existing text can be improved.

On the talk page, a user agrees to add some changes from ScienceApologist's preferred version to the longstanding version as a compromise. The user begins to do so, but ScienceApologist reverts the effort and again erases the bulk of the article.

He is then notified that the page is under mediation and asked to join that process. Instead of doing so, he once more deletes the bulk of the article over talk-page objections ( [10] [11]), accusing his opponent of "POV-pushing". (He never joins the mediation process.)

He cannot revert again without breaking WP:3RR, so he waits twenty-four hours. The suggestion is made that while the article is under mediation and up for deletion, it might be appropriate to move slowly and justify major changes to other editors and to the mediator. Responding, ScienceApologist refers to "dragging one's feet in an attempt to get one's way", dismisses mediation as an "external debate" which has "nothing to do with the problematic content of this page", and announces that "Editting a page proceeds whether there is mediation".

Confronted with the fact that his preferred version attributes to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes, he modifies it. The modification introduces even more problems. When they are explained to him, he reacts with an edit summary of "ridiculous" and declares that "we've proven that we can work with the material I put forth" and that "there haven't been any substantive objections to working from the simpler version".

Twenty-four hours have elapsed, so he reverts again, again (making a false accusation of sockpuppetry), again (calling the previous editor's work "nonsense"), and again (referring to "Lagan's [sic] junk"). He has now broken 3RR, but the article is protected and he escapes a block.

When a user requests, regarding an editing dispute, that ScienceApologist try to read and understand Langan's position, he accuses the user of "evangelism" and replies that "There is no reason to 'read and understand' what Lagan [sic] says about a particular subject."

He then observes that "there are some enthusiasts who want to claim that I'm not "understanding" what Lagan [sic] is saying." Not only is he not understanding what Langan is saying, he's not even spelling the name correctly, repeatedly inserting "Lagan" into the article ( [12] [13] [14] ) even after being corrected.

To summarize, ScienceApologist arrived at an article about a philosophical theory, concluded that it could be categorized under "pseudoscience", aggressively tried to erase the bulk of the content over the protests of other editors, repeatedly ascribed to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes, reverted an attempt at compromise, didn't join the mediation process, didn't gain consensus for his massive deletions, broke 3RR, made wild accusations of evangelism, POV-pushing, and sockpuppetry, derided other users' efforts as "ridiculous" and "nonsense", pronounced Langan's work "junk", and yet was so uninformed about the theory that he could not even spell its author's name correctly, let alone accurately edit an encyclopedia article about it. Tim Smith 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Posting of speculative personal information by ScienceApologist

As background, WP:HARASS says that "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, [etc.], regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself." WP:BLOCK says that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated."

On November 9, 2006, ScienceApologist speculates about Asmodeus's real-life identity on Asmodeus's talk page. Asmodeus replies on ScienceApologist's talk page, warning him about divulgence of personal information, and removes the speculation. In response, ScienceApologist posts expanded speculation about Asmodeus's personal identity at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography, asks about Asmodeus's identity on another user's talk page, replies with expanded speculation on his own talk page, and speculates about Asmodeus's identity at an RfAr talk page.

Asmodeus protests at the RfAr talk page. Meanwhile, the user whom ScienceApologist contacted has removed from his talk page the question about Asmodeus's identity, and tells ScienceApologist that he feels such speculation "would be contrary to the spirit of collegiality here, and as pointed out already, very possibly contrary to the spirit of the guidelines."

Asmodeus tries to remove speculative personal information from ScienceApologist's talk page, but ScienceApologist restores it. Asmodeus asks ScienceApologist to remove it, but ScienceApologist does not. At Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography, an uninvolved user tells ScienceApologist that he "would maintain that this kind of PI style of posting is quite inappropriate. It is distasteful and irrelevant", and advises him to "Spend you efforts working with the actual text of articles instead of trying to decipher the personal lives, opinions and credentials of those writing them." (ScienceApologist later claims that he "got no indications that [he] was being undiplomatic.")

Asmodeus again requests that ScienceApologist remove the speculative personal information, and points him to WP:HARASS, which says that posting personal information is a type of harassment. Another uninvolved user tells ScienceApologist that "contributors are allowed to be anon and outing identies is not allowed" and that he needs to alter his tactics, advising: "Don't deal with who the real person is behind the username."

Nonetheless, ScienceApologist does not remove the information, and it remains on his talk page as of this post, three weeks later. Tim Smith 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus ignores WP:NPOV and WP:NOT

User:Asmodeus, who in the real world is apparently related in some way to the topic of Christopher Michael Langan (some have asked him to clarify if they are one and the same), has been using Wikipedia to promote the views of Christopher Michael Langan and inflate Langan's stature. His closeness to the topic of Langan has lead him to violate a number of policies resulting in much disruption of the project in his short time here and the leaving of several editors from the project and the wrongful indef blocking of one. Langan is an autodidact and self-styled expert in the fields of mathematics, physics, cosmology and cognitive sciences and an intelligent design advocate. Langan's views are not accepted within the mainstream scientific community. Yet Asmodeus has been consistently presenting Langan's views as accepted out of proportion to the evidence and as just plausible as the accepted views in mainstream science. These biased edits have largely taken place on topics related to Langan such as Uncommon Dissent (a book Langan participated in), Academic elitism (a notion dear to Langan), Crank (person) (Langan has been publicly labeled a crank), and Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (Langan's pet notion and primary claim to fame).

• Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe is an idea Langan has been trying to sell as a scientific theory to the mainstream scientific community without success (the ID crowd has been the most receptive group). Asmodeus has consistently deleted or weakened criticisms of it, and replaced actual sourced criticisms with unsourced straw men: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

• Langan's notions are either ignored or rejected outright by the mainstream scienctific community, but at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan, Asmodeus consistently attempts to inflate Langan's stature and acceptance within science while arguing to remove criticisms, and then attacks editors who resist his efforts: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (trying to have both ways, implying CTMU is a competitive scientific theory in the article, then claiming it's not on the talk page to avoid having to present sources) [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

• At Academic elitism, adding unsourced personal opinion presented as fact: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] (refusing to provide sources) (edit warring while continuing to refuse to provide sources) (more edit warring while continuing to refuse to provide sources)

• At Crank (person), adding unsourced personal opinion presented as fact: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

• At Uncommon_Dissent, adding unsourced personal opinion, trying to remove notable facts as "unsourced," promoting Langan and Langan's view: (removing BK notability issues tag without addressing issue) (adding Langan to article) [43] [44] replacing neutral language with a presentation of a particular pov as fact [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

• At Crackpot index, edit warring, pov deletions of links to relevant sites (that happen to list Langan's notions as crankish and his fellow International Society for Complexity, Information and Design Fellows as cranks), and WP:OWN issues: [51] [52] [53] [54]

Asmodeus dismisses WP:COI and WP:AUTO while hiding behind WP:HAR

Despite multiple calls, Asmodeus refuses to clarify his relationship to the topic of Christopher Michael Langan, apparently concealing his identity to skirt having to comply to these policies. Though unwilling to clarify his relationship to Langan, Asmodeus rejects all calls to limit his participation to the talk pages of Langan-related articles per WP:COI and [[WP:AUTO] to lessen and remove this cloud but instead continues to make obviously biased edits to the articles themselves: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

Asmodeus ignores WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:HAR

User:Asmodeus consistently lashes out at those who seek to have him clarify his relationship to Langan or who oppose his promotion and inflation of Langan's notions: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

DrL ignores WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:OWN

User:DrL is another editor who in the real world is related to the topic of Christopher Michael Langan [85] [86] and whose closeness to the topic of Langan has lead her to violate policies. User:Hillman sought to have DrL clarify if she is connected to Langan, for which he was attacked and is no longer with the project. Like Asmodeus, DrL has been using Wikipedia to promote Christopher Michael Langan and inflate his stature. They have been working in tandem at Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe and at the Langan article they have split their efforts; the Langan article being handled by DrL, whereas Asmodeus handles those articles pertinent to Langan's views and thereby avoiding a more flagrant violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI were Asmodeus to edit the Langan article directly. DrL has been consistently edit warring and tacitly asserting ownership at Christopher Michael Langan and Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe.

• At Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe DrL has consistently deleted or weakened criticisms of it, and like Asmodeus replaced actual sourced criticisms with straw men: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

• At Christopher Michael Langan DrL has consistently resisted any edits that link Langan to intelligent design, which verfiably exists as Langan is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), an intelligent design think tank. [112] DrL has repeatedly been promoting a Langan and his viewpoint, edit warring (usually with a edit summary of "Please no edit warring!"), in effect asserting ownership of the Langan article since July: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]

DrL dismisses WP:COI and WP:AUTO

Despite multiple calls, DrL refuses to clarify her relationship to the topic of Christopher Michael Langan, apparently concealing her identity to skirt having to comply to these policies. Though unwilling to clarify her relationship to Langan, DrL rejects all calls to limit her participation to the talk pages of Langan-related articles per WP:COI and WP:AUTO: [152] [153] [154] [155]

DrL abuses WP:HAR

Like Asmodeus, DrL has lashed out at those who have sought to have her clarify her relationship to the topic of Langan as a result of her biased edits, constant edit warring and apparent self-editing. And again like Asmodeus while simultaneously refusing to clarify her relationship she accuses of harassment those seek who her compliance with the self-editing guidelines. Using this tactic to game the system Asmodeus succeeded in having User:Haldane Fisher wrongly indef blocked: [156] DrL has now followed Asmodeus' example by now trying to have Hal's new account blocked using the same method of gaming the system: [157] [158]

DrL has a history of violating WP:3RR

In the course of her edit warring, DrL has been blocked 3 times now for 3RR violations at Christopher_Michael_Langan and Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: [159]

• DrL was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR at 12:31 on 27 November: [160] 1 hr and 2 minutes after the block expired DrL was back edit warring at the Christopher Michael Langan article, violating 3RR again within 8 hrs: 1st revert: 13:23, 28 November 2nd revert: 16:45, 28 November 3rd revert: 20:56, 28 November 4th revert: 21:27, 28 November

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.