This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for checkuser

1) The arbcomm, in order to determine if User:Asmodeus and User:DrL are indeed skirting WP:AUTO and WP:COI, will need to determine whether Asmodeus and DrL are related to Christopher Michael Langan for the purpose of settling this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Doesn't matter exactly who they are; it is the disruptive behavior that is at issue. Fred Bauder 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

The identity of the users is not at issue. It is the quality and style of editing. Both of these editors are reasonable in their editing and seek to maintain NPOV. -- DrL 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Requested. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How? Thatcher131 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Per this and this I have added DrL as a party. Disruptive behavior is a no-no no matter who the editor is in real-life. Please add evidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I just want to put in a comment here that my disruptive behavior is alleged, not proven as the above statement might imply. And it won't be proven. The alleged "evidence" is a string of good faith edits posted by Felonious Monk. Anyone can peruse them on the evidence page and I invite them to do so. I stand by my edits and editing style as seeking to maintain balance and accuracy in any article I edit. -- DrL 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary ban of DrL from Langan-related articles

1) DrL was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR at 12:31 on 27 November. 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. This was DrL's 4th block now for 3RR violations at Christopher_Michael_Langan and Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: [1]

Given DrL's chronic edit warring and multiple 3RR violations, and the fact after her last block she returned and immediately violated 3RR again, a temporary ban to halt the disruption is in order, at least until this proceeding is completed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This accusation confuses "edit-warring" with "editing". Anyone who carefully examines the history of the article will see that my edits are reasonable. Additionally, I did not edit the article until it started getting attacked this past summer. On the other hand, many of the other editors have exhibited rudeness and decidedly inaccurate POV editing. Wrt the two blocks instigated by Felonious Monk, they are both bogus examples of gaming the system by an administrator who, as far as I can see, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. -- DrL 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
- It doesn't matter whether your edits are reasonable; it matters that you continued to revert. Everyone involved in a edit war can claim that their opponents engaged in inaccurate POV editing; that's why 3RR and edit-warring aren't about who was making the best edits, it's about who was continuing to fight instead of trying to discuss. That's what makes it an edit war.-- Prosfilaes 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No, she didn't revert. The accusations were phony, just as yours was when you followed me to Academic Elitism, erased all my edits, and then cried "3RR!" when I justifiably reversed your deletions. People like you and FeloniousMonk use rules like 3RR to game the system against those whom you have unilaterally designated as your opponents. The only thing I can say on your behalf is that at least you didn't abuse your own administrative authority in the process. Instead, you got someone else to abuse his (and shame on you for that). Asmodeus 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
- That makes no sense. Reverts are the most mechanical policy in Wikipedia; it's not about whether your reverses are justified or not, it's about whether or not you make them. Period.-- Prosfilaes 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the bottom line is that I didn't make three reverts. According to the edit history used by FM to try to block me, at most I reverted a piece of information twice. -- DrL 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Right. I think that Prosfilaes may need to check out the Wikipedia definition of reversion. DrL's edits didn't qualify as reversions under that definition. Asmodeus 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Immediate ban of Haldane Fisher accounts

Haldane Fisher continues to speculate about the RL identities, places of employment, and other personal details of parties involved in this arbitration. This is in violation of multiple policies including WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:STALK, and WP:PRIVACY. He is disrupting the proceedings and his edits constitute serious personal attacks. These activities need to be interdicted immediately.

Harassing and threatening edits include this, this and this, and virtually everything else in his contributions page. As there is no sign of abatement, damage control would indicate that a ban is in order. As this user has used two accounts, both will need to be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- DrL 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As of this writing the accounts have been blocked. I hope that this will represent a permanent state of affairs when the arbitration is over. -- DrL 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Immediate Ban on Posting Personal Information and Speculation about IRL

There is a real problem with editors and involved parties posting speculation on RL identities and other harassment against the parties in this arbitration. This is a serious violation of policy on any day at Wikipedia, particularly WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:BLOCK, WP:STALK, and even WP:OR, but it is even more egregious when it inteferes with the arbitration process. This behavior must stop immediately. Blatant speculations on RL identities constites a personal attack under the stated Wikipedia policies and may be removed by any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- DrL 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I second. The talk page for Christopher Michael Langan has now turned into a diversionary chaos of RL identity speculation, unauthorized divulgence of personal information, secret emails, and unabashed wikilawyering. It really needs to stop. DrL and I have opted not to share our RL identities for a simple, undeniable reason: this site contains far too many trolls, ID critics, failed litigators, and so on who would use any and all personal information on us to subject us to harassment, and many of them have already done so without waiting for final corroboration. Now, in order to make RL identity an issue despite the personal harassment potential of RL information, one most unequivocally demonstrate a clear pattern of WP:NPOV violations. I'm willing to stand on my edit history to the letter, and I believe that DrL is willing to do the same. Of course, I'm aware that FeloniousMonk has linked to every single one of our edits as "evidence" of AUTO/COI violations in this RfAr, but FeloniousMonk is mistaken and clearly driven by philosophical bias (and possibly some other form of jealousy or resentment). In the final analysis, the "right" of others to harass us because we might some day violate WP:AUTO, or because some day I might decide to insert a CTMU reference in some science article where it arguably doesn't belong, is nonexistent. Wikipedia is not, and never will be, in a position to censure or punish anyone for potential misdeeds. Accordingly, the harassment against us should stop, even if that requires forcible interdiction. Where there are so many aggressors bent on harassing a given victim that the victim does not have enough hours in the day to track all of the policy violations and cut and paste and format all the little diffs and find willing administrators and plead for their help and warn and communicate with all the violators and then wait and wait ad nauseam while potentially irretrievable damage is done, then a faster mechanism is clearly required. That is certainly the case here, and that, I daresay, is why this proposal has been made. Asmodeus 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

So basically the fact that DrL and Asmodeus have both used the same IP, and the theory that they are closely related to Christopher Michael Langan should be hidden? I think that's very relevant to this arbitration.-- Prosfilaes 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it is not. This arbitration is in fact about the harassment of DrL and me by people who have been trying to extort personal information out of us since shortly after we arrived here. The idea that these selfsame people should be able to treat this RfAr as a golden opportunity to redouble their violations of WP:HARASS, etc., is utterly absurd. Asmodeus 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We need to separate the specific from the general here. Thatcher131 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of anyone trying to extort personal information out of you. You've given us all the information needed to make a strong speculation about your identity, and it is the mere posting of that speculation that makes up much of what you're objecting to. Besides Haldane Fisher, who is banned, all we're talking about is your name.-- Prosfilaes 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not even interested in the legal name. I am just interested in the issues of identity as far as the article Christopher Michael Langan is concerned and WP:AUTO and WP:COI are concerned. For all I care, the users in question could have any name, but if their real life identities coincide with those articles, the users should not edit those articles. -- ScienceApologist 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is ridiculous. What DrL wants is freedom from WP:AUTO/ WP:COI and to punish users who would attempt to enforce it. Furthermore, the notion that this could even involve WP:OR indicates fundamental misunderstandings of that policy since it is a policy about article content. I also have now idea what DrL means "per WP." It would help if the user would specify what policy she is talking about. JoshuaZ 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. The accounts are used only to attack one person and have moved beyond just repeating a name to employment information. Fred Bauder 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean Hal's behavior which has been clearly harrassing at this point. However, the statement in this proposal is much more general than that. JoshuaZ 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Also, DrL added WP:BLOCK to the list of relevant policies justifying this. It looks to me like DrL is just throwing in as many policies as possible without regard to their relevancy). JoshuaZ 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It was in response to a message that you left on my talk page that I edited this to try to be clearer. I used an appropriate edit summary when I did so. I believe that the policies listed are all relevant and listen them in good faith. -- DrL 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am adding this excerpt from WP:BLOCK: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, 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.

On general principles, some speculation about real life identity may be appropriate in order to evaluate an editor's contributions. This should be limited, though, as the bottom line is that someone who is a fawning supporter or blind defender of a biography is going to have their credibility deprecated whether their identity is established or not. (as is an obviously biased attacker) With certain users this has crossed over into pure harrassment, as with Haldane Fisher posting speculation to completely unrelated topics (for which I blocked him, by the way). Some limited consideration of an editor's relationship to an article (kept moderate and respectful in tone) will often be appropriate. The only perfect defense is to not edit articles that you are closely related to. Thatcher131 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you mind giving your opinion about the IRL speculations and how they are used in this edit?. -- DrL 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Posting of personal information

1) The posting of personal information, or speculation thereof, of a Wikipedia user is strictly prohibited, as defined by Wikipedia:Harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a firm policy. It is serious digging after the identity of anonymous users combined with posting of personal information combined with personal harassment which is the evil. Speculation regarding the identity of an anonymous user whose interests mirror a known person are only natural. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

DrL and I were subjected to vicious, protracted campaigns of harassment by users Byrgenwulf and Hillman/CH. During these campaigns, which ended only when they left Wikipedia, I learned that Wikipedia harbors certain people - militant skeptics, ID critics and so forth - who bear Christopher Michael Langan what seems to be considerable ill will for various POV-based reasons, and also that Wikipedia has few administrators willing to restrain them. Those who post allegations that I am CML are exposing me to this reservoir of ill will, and to add insult to injury, spiking it with misrepresentations and trying to tie my hands in the bargain. This is utterly reprehensible, and quite aside from the fact that my edit history requires no apologies, I strongly object to it on ethical grounds. If this is some sort of catch-22 inherent in Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia policy is unsound; on the other hand, if Wikipedia policy is sound, then properly interpreting and enforcing it should put an end to the harassment. Asmodeus 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This rule is an important policy that must be upheld to insure user safety and preempt ad hominem attacks. The important aspects to focus on are the editing behaviors (e.g., are they NPOV or not?) of the individuals rather than their identities IRL. -- DrL 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Given [2], needs to be defined. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 23:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Pot=Kettle Thatcher131 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As per below, this is not "strictly prohibited" - the arbcomm has done this on several occassions, and any CheckUser case amounts to some degree of (public) speculation in this regard. Guettarda 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:HAR was never intended as a shield to allow editors who have a personal stake in a topic to side-step complying with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Scofflaws who attempt to use WP:HAR to game the system should not benefit from their misdeeds. Arbcomm precedent exists that affirms this. FeloniousMonk 18:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Statements like the above have been rejected in past ArbCom decisions such as the Agapetos Angel arbitration. JoshuaZ 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Anonymous editors

1) Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Speculation regarding obvious situations is not a violation. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

If anyone has a right to anonymity at Wikipedia, then so does everyone, including bio subjects and the authors of notable ideas. Anything else is blatantly discriminatory. When Byrgenwulf came here from The Brights.net in order to attack the CML and CTMU articles, he proclaimed himself an expert in the philosophy of physics while making various mistakes that a real expert wouldn't have made. On the supposition that a real expert is not afraid to share his credentials, I did some minor investigation, found that Byrgenwulf was at best a grad student, and naively pointed this out (along with his name, which I included for purposes of verification). Needless to say, the sky fell on me for daring to reveal the extent of his "expert qualifications". Yet, when Hillman/CH began his outrageous "dig page" on me and DrL, including every scrap of information he could ferret and various slurs and false charges in the bargain, nobody seemed to have a problem with it but the victims (us). The double standard is palpable. Again, if this is inherent in Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia policy is unsound. The distributed architecture of Wikipedia demands symmetry above all else. Asmodeus 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The right to privacy is a fundamental right in a project like Wikipedia. Aside from safety issues, respect for the privacy of the individual helps keep the focus on the content of edits, rather than ad hominem speculations. -- DrL 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

From {{ Pinfo4}}. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There is value to anonymity, but it is definitely not a right of contributors. {{ Pinfo4}}, which does not appear to be supported by either policy or guideline, directly contradicts WP:AUTO and WP:COI, and conflicts with CheckUser. See also the Agapetos angel arbcomm case. Harrassment should not be tolerated, but we make no guarantees of anonymity, and we cannot make such guarantees if we want to be able to protect ourselves. Guettarda 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hiding behind anonymity to circumvent policy and guideline governing self-editing and bias to enable one to promote a narrow viewpoint to the detriment of article neutrality is simply gaming the system; an act of bad faith and an abuse of policy, not a protected right. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Anonymity does not contradict WP:AUTO and WP:COI, both of which are guidelines. Inappropriate edits to any article could be made by both anonymous and known individuals. Irrespective of an editor's identify, the quality and nature of a specify edit is what should be judged.

Consequently we could dream up suspicions against any anonymous editor, but if that's the best argument for an inappropriate edit, then there probably aren't very good reasons against an edit, anyway. -- Iantresman 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Assuming good faith

1) Without evidence to the contrary, all Wikipedians should assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An adequate restatement. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Sometimes not easy but we should all try. -- DrL 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per "ScienceApologist has serially violated WP:NPA, WP:LIVING, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPOV while falsely accusing me of violating WP:AUTO (as loyally seconded by some of his allies)" -- Asmodeus. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Affiliations and views

1) All Wikipedians are expected to abide by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This includes that using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views should be discouraged and/or prevented, regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Awkwardly expressed but true. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is called home by a certain number of militants, including its own self-appointed anti-ID and anti-pseudoscience "strike teams". In the current political and educational climate, wherein ID is systematically conflated with creationism, calling someone an "ID advocate" is enough to annihilate his or her credibility with a large percentage of the educated populace. In point of impact, one might compare it to crying "witch!" against an eccentric 17th century Salem spinster. ID critics and militant skeptics are very well aware of this. By falsely but tirelessly identifying CML as an "ID advocate" while repeatedly removing references to valid sources like Popular Science (e.g., 1), ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and their comrades-in-arms are trying to make him, and by proxy me, a focus of contempt. Of course, the proper focus of contempt is exactly this kind of behavior. Asmodeus 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus's points are a content issue, not a policy issue. CML, by publishing in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, has given support to Intelligent Design. He has joined a society about Intelligent Design. I have seen nothing verifiable from Asmodeus to show that CML has positive opinions on evolution. This should be covered in the article; the only question I see is what weight should be put on it, and that's fundamentally a content issue.-- Prosfilaes 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. Langan came out in support of evolution in Popular Science, in the PCID paper, and in the very first paragraph of Cheating the Millennium. One reason you may not be aware of this is that these crucial sources have been periodically removed from Christopher Michael Langan by people trying to sabotage the article. This is why so much of DrL's precious time has been taken up trying to maintain its accuracy. Asmodeus 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. This speaks to the importance of focusing on content rather than engaging in harassment and ad hominem attacks to censor good faith editors. -- DrL 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Reworded. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Flies in the face of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and not attempt to mislead the community in order to avoid having to comply WP:COI and WP:AUTO. FeloniousMonk 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I would dislike this for reasons related to what FM said. Involved editors edits should not be dismissed a priori. However, when involved editors have shown repeated tendencies to POV push or be otherwise disruptive it is highly understandable if editors react in a dismissive fashion to their later edits. JoshuaZ 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Right. Now all you have to do is establish that anyone but ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and their anti-Langan, anti-CTMU partisans "have shown repeated tendencies to POV push or be otherwise disruptive". Until you do that, your remark has no relevance to the editorial behavior of anyone but ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and their partisans. Ever since you came to my talk page in defense of ScienceApologist to falsely accuse me of violating WP:AUTO by frequently editing the Langan bio, you've displayed what looks like total incomprehension of your verificative (and administrative) responsibilities. Asmodeus 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Autobiographical writing

1) Although discouraged in certain circumstances (see WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV), editing articles which are autobiographical in nature are not prohibited. Known or speculated autobiographical edits cannot be reverted on the grounds of being simply autobiographical in nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not prohibited, but subject to revision and in extreme cases to reversion or deletion. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I see that I'm accused below of editing the Langan biography. As DrL observes, I did so just twice: once to correct a misspelling, and once because ScienceApologist had sneakily added the following false statement: "Langan is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, an intelligent design society founded by Jonathan Wells." Because there is no evidence that Langan knows Wells or vice versa, Wells does not belong in Langan's biography any more than Langan belongs in Wells'. After all, ScienceApologist was merely attempting to associate Langan with a man who is widely (and probably unjustly) criticized for being both an ID advocate and a follower of the Rev Sun Myung Moon - in short, a "Moonie" - and who thus suffers from a double PR whammy for which he has paid a steep price. Granted, it's a game that people like ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk delight in playing, but why should they be allowed to play it at Langan's expense? (Incidentally, ScienceApologist's statement is false because Wells is not among the founders of ISCID at all, as one can easily see by reading this article.) Asmodeus 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence is available now that shows this is simply untrue. Please see Asmodeus has attempted to mislead the community... FeloniousMonk 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Very true. The content of the edits should be the primary focus. -- DrL 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
While there is no solid prohibition, it is discouraged in general, not just "in certain circumstances". Several arbcomm rulings (e.g., the Carl_Hewitt, WebEx/Min Zhu and Agapetos angel cases) have supported this idea. Guettarda 05:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Though the principle is sound, WP:AUTO exists to discourage self-editing and specifically mentions why it is inappropriate "[there are]...several fundamental problems with autobiographies:They are often biased, usually positively (see puffery). People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts." and urges editors to refrain from writing about themselves "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself." Much arbcomm precedent exists to this effect. And puffery and self-aggrandizement were exactly the issues with Asmodeus' edits that drew ScienceApologist's attention and continue to this day at Uncommon Dissent as I write this: [3] [4] [5] [6] FeloniousMonk 19:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This statement by Felonious Monk gives the impression that Asmodeus has edited the Langan bio and he has not. The one or two edits that he's made only corrected a typo or two. This is typical of the presentation of FM's complaints. I hope that whoever is reading FM's statements is also reading the edits and seeing just what is going on here. -- DrL 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It gives that impression? How so? Guettarda 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually this edit is an attempt to whitewash the ID connection from the article. That's far more than a typo, it's clearly POV-pushing. Guettarda 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No, that edit left the "ID connection" completely intact, even more so than it deserves to be. After all, this is the biography of someone who explicitly embraces evolution, but is being falsely characterized as a diehard "ID advocate" on the basis of a single long-dormant affiliation in connection with which he signed no creationist petitions and swore no ID exclusivity oath. In fact, ISCID's fellowship criteria don't even include the phrase "Intelligent Design". Please, Arthur - this is an encyclopedia, and its readers deserve the truth. Asmodeus 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It did seem to play down the ID connection. As to your claim that "but is being falsely characterized as a diehard "ID advocate" on the basis of a single long-dormant affiliation" - Wikipedia cares about [{WP:V|verifiability not truth]](wow, I think that's the third time I've had to say that today). If Langan is no longer involved in ID or the ISCID that's just great and we can note it in the article if we have a reliable source for it. JoshuaZ 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The ID connection was "played down" only to the extent that it had previously been "played up". Furthermore, it is not acceptable to claim that a Wikipedia bio subject actively "advocates" a particular point of view on the strength of a single affiliation. Those who attempt to make Langan a focus of disapproval by calling him an "ID advocate" need to verify their claims by reliable sourcing, not by tendentiously citing a single affiliation or noting a couple of references to ID in one of his papers. Even though ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk and others have repeatedly inserted such misleading claims into the CML article, they have not yet complied with this basic editorial requirement. Asmodeus 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

In a world where attempts to game the system were always successful, the claim that the topics Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Uncommon Dissent and Academic elitism fail to find a nexus with Asmodeus would make sense I suppose. FeloniousMonk 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The CTMU article was groundlessly deleted long ago, and I never edited it at all until was being attacked from all angles. I edited Uncommon Dissent only at the request of Arthur Rubin, who otherwise threatened to delete it just in time to deprive the CTMU of a reputable source during this RfAr (of course, just as I've learned to expect, I was tracked to the article and subjected to the usual editorial harassment anyway). And Academic Elitism, in addition to having nothing to do with the CTMU, is something from which I have absolutely nothing to gain in the present encyclopedic context. Again, FeloniousMonk games the system from one side of his mouth while falsely accusing his victims of doing so from the other. Asmodeus 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Reverting

1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I wish editors were more inclined to collaborate and communicate. I will continue to try to facilitate positive communication amongst the editors of the articles I am working on and hope others do the same. -- DrL 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems relevant. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 23:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Harassment (intent)

1) Posting an editors personal details with the intent or effect of harassing or threatening is strictly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Posting of an editor's personal details is prohibited. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Alternative to other harassment options. The intent/effect of personal details is key, not the mere posting of them, much like vandalism/testing. JBKramer 07:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In response to Fred, if I were to comment that on Thursday, January 6, 2000, editor William Michael Connolley was at tlc's talk on solar-climate connections, I would be in violation of some rule? He was, you know. JBKramer 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess an indefinite block is in order. I am referring to more intimate matters especially with respect to editors who use a pseudoname. People who edit under their own name have different expectations. Fred Bauder 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed, of course. It is important to provide a safe environment. -- DrL 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree - it's whether there is (or appears to be) intent to harrass that matters most. Guettarda 07:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yep, like this one better compared to my one per above statements. Cheers for this. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 11:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Harrassment (damage)

1) Causing or threatening to cause damage to an editors reputation, livelihood or well-being, regardless of intent, is strictly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As an alternative to above? Honestly confused on the line/judgement here. JBKramer 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. This is another important safeguard for Wikipedia editors. Here is an example of speculation regarding my employment that I find disturbing. -- DrL 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Good faith participation and compliance with WP:COI and WP:AUTO

1) Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and comply with WP:COI and WP:AUTO, which require limiting their participation to the talk page when their edits are challenged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Discretion is recommended. Easy to make a fool of yourself. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Despite having done my best to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI since I came to Wikipedia, and at the risk of belaboring the obvious, I should observe that there are certain editors with whom it does little good to plead for accuracy on an article's talk page: militant or compulsive editors who don't listen particularly well, are perfectly content to leave you bound and gagged on the talk page while using their greater latitude to edit as they please, and then accuse you of violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI anyway. (Since I speak from long personal experience, including recent experience with certain parties involved in this RfAr, I trust that I'm not violating WP:AGF.) Asmodeus 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See this edit for an example of where an editor has used WP:COI to try and drive an editor from the talk page.-- Prosfilaes 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All editors need to act in good faith at all times. Editors who have a stake in a topic or a personal or emotional involvement in a particular article should be extremely careful when editing to maintain NPOV. The Wikipedia rules do allow for such parties to edit their articles of interest, provided they are neutral edits. In fact, policy recognizes that individuals that are closely involved in a topic can actually do the encyclopedia a service by correcting factual errors. -- DrL 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Good faith participation when there are conflicts of interest

1) Editors with a personal stake in a topic are expected to act in good faith and not attempt to mislead the community as to their stake in the topic in order to avoid having to comply WP:COI and WP:AUTO.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Recommended Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Editors are not required to answer questions or respond to speculations regarding their personal identity and stake in a topic. To refuse to answer such questions should not be misconstrued as an "attempt to mislead". All editors are expected to act in good faith whether or not they have a stake in the topic. It would make sense that editors who have a stake in the topic be extremely careful to maintain a neutral POV in their edits. -- DrL 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Existing bias towards obscure academic theories

1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias says that Wikipedia has a bias towards "obscure academic theories and subcultures with few adherents" that should be counterbalanced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Can't find that quote, but probably true in some cases. Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Added; I'd count CTMU for this as an obscure academic theory.-- Prosfilaes 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

CTMU is not obscure, it is subobscure. Indeed, many situations, Wikipedia does not have sources criticising crank theories because no-one the academic elite considers them even remotely good enough to have any attention paid to them. Haldane Fisher 10:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Not sure that I agree with it, but the quote is there in the essay, see section 1.1, 4th bullet point. Newyorkbrad 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge

1) Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable established knowledge found in reliable sources. Unpublished or self-published information is generally unsuitable for inclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed, with an epistemological caveat. It has been said that the highest state of any theory is "not yet disproved". This raises the bar to prohibitive heights for theoretical knowledge; on the theoretical level, all we ultimately have are mathematical theorems derived from some specific set of axioms, or pieces of possible knowledge possessing some degree of empirical confirmation and embraced by some percentage of those claiming expertise in the appropriate field (which itself may not be entirely clear, especially for highly original theories with interdisciplinary content). Instead of irrationally denying these epistemological constraints, Wikipedia regards verification, and for that matter notability, strictly as matters of reliable sourcing. In point of fact, the work of Christopher Michael Langan has been reliably sourced by Wikipedia standards. Having been mentioned and/or described in such impeccable mass media sources as ABC, the BBC, the Times, and Popular Science, as well as explicated in two extensive scholastic publications, the CTMU is in fact one of the better-sourced concepts in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, its Wikipedia article was was frantically deleted by a group of editors including ScienceApologist, on the patently absurd grounds that it is not only "pseudoscience", but insufficiently notable to qualify for an article here. In other words, these people made a joke out of Wikipedia verifiability standards in order to prosecute their irrational resentment of a theory they clearly fail to grasp, their transparent misunderstanding of the definition of "pseudoscience", and their philosophically-loaded contempt for anything which has been equated, rightly or wrongly, with Intelligent Design. Yet, prior to this moblike disruption, nobody had ever attempted to introduce the CTMU into any science article on Wikipedia, or any article not dealing exclusively with the CTMU and its author. In short, Wikipedia's standards of inclusion were steamrollered by a juggernaut of prejudice, ignorance, and philosophical bias, and nobody in authority lifted a finger to help (indeed, quite the opposite). If possible, steps should be taken to limit the recurrence of this kind of malfunction. Asmodeus 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Ban for disruption

2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles may be banned from that area, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Autobiography and Conflict of Interest

3) A user who apparently disrupts editing of the article on themselves and their areas of interest may be restricted in their editing. It is not necessary that a definite identification be made; only that the user engages in such a pattern of editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's a strong principle - is it really permissible to restrict someone on WP:AUTO grounds if you're not sure if they're the person in question? My instinct is that it would be better to proceed under the tendentious editor provisions - otherwise most tendentious editors might be subject to restriction under the theory that their "pattern" of editing raises a strong inference of conflict of interest. TheronJ 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There is conflict of interest which is quite personal as in this case and conflict of interest which is much more abstract, as in articles which excite nationalist feelings. Trying to identify the person, and encouraging efforts to do so, is a violation of our users' privacy. Fred Bauder 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment (Posting of personal information) was never intended to provide a shield that allows personally involved editors to game the system and avoid having to follow WP:COI and WP:AUTO by coyly dodging requests for them to clarify their relationship to a topic (without revealing their identity, a simple "yes/no, I am/am not involved" would do) and thumb their noses at the community. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The issue is not just limited to biographies though. An editor personally involved in a topic may (wisely) avoid self-editing at his biography, but run rampant with biased edits at the article of professional organization he belongs to while not disclosing his relationship to the topic. The problem here is no different than that paid editors contributing to articles, and the net effect is the same. Editors are expected to act in good faith to clarify whether they a conflict of interest when queried. Dodging the question by refusing to clarify in order to avoid complying with guidelines is by necessity an act of bad faith. Clearly biased editing on any topic you're closely related to, like the article of your employer, is a clear conflict of interest. WP:COI and WP:AUTO exist for this very reason. 99% of us follow them, those who try to side-step them should not be rewarded. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Good faith is not unlimited

1) While the assumption of good faith is important, it is explicitly not limitless. It is permissible, in the face of the obvious, to call a spade a spade.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:AGF states "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
However, "calling a spade a spade", if it is a personal attack, or contravenes WP:LIVING, is not allowed under any circumstances, and consequently there appears to be no defense. -- Iantresman 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Feel free to cut this but it seem to me that if we are going (rightly) to mention AGF, we should also note that an editor may, through their actions, forfeit that right. Guy ( Help!) 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No original research

1) Information which has not been published in a reliable source may not be included, see Wikipedia:No original research. It is not acceptable whether the user attempting to insert original research is the author or a third party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed. "Original research" also extends to unsourced speculations that were previously not cited or the material not synthesized. For example, one cannot state that John Doe is an advocate of Z, citing his membership in X and subscription to Y as this might constitute OR if not synthesized elsewhere in a reliable source. -- DrL 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

But you are welcome to state that X is an organization devoted to Z where that is easily citable.-- Prosfilaes 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Legal threats

1) Legal threats are prohibited

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No legal threats. JBKramer 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Administrative conflicts of interest

1) Administrators who take strong positions on content issues, whether on Wikipedia or in real life (e.g. Bucketsofg's opposition to certain Canadian politicians, FeloniousMonk's opposition to Intelligent Design and membership in WikiProject intelligent design) should not take administrative action regarding editors or articles closely associated with the topic, even if they have not previously edited the article or interacted with the editor (and might consider themselves technically "uninvolved"). I guess this was a stupid idea. Thatcher131 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposed desyopping in this case is based on unblocking a serious problem user on the basis that he was "doing just fine". It has nothing to do with the meta theme of opposing intelligent design. Fred Bauder 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I see considerable merit in this proposal. NPOV is important not only in editing articles, but also in administrative judgments. Unfortunately, while POV-driven editors tend to be counterbalanced by other editors with contrary opinions, there is no analogous mechanism for balancing or moderating the POV-driven behavior of an administrator who has become emotionally involved in a content-related dispute. Voluntary compliance won't do the trick; some Wikipedia administrators evidently lack the objectivity and self-control to refrain from "looking for trouble" within the range of their POV's, much less restrain themselves in the heat of an argument in which they are already directly involved. That leaves only relatively coarse measures like forbidding the members of WikiProject ID to use their administrative powers in any dispute relating to ID. Given that we've already seen the absence of such rules result in various unpleasant consequences, arguably including this RfAr, such rules would appear to be needed. Regarding the occasional emergency situation, exceptions can always be accommodated. Asmodeus 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Prop. Thatcher131 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Note this could catch a number of other admins (e.g. MONGO) who have strong opinions about content. Hopefully they have already learned to refrain from takin admin action themselves in relation to topics they care deeply about. Thatcher131 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

IMHO, this is a good idea, but doesn't obviously follow from current policy. Assuming I'm correct, (1) should this go through the normal policy process rather than arbcomm; or (2) if it goes through arbcomm, should it be prospective only? It's also tricky to define "strong positions." TheronJ 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agree with what Theron says in so far as that this is arguably beyond the ArbCom's level of discretion. (Throw in some joke about an activist arbcom here). I'm also not sure this is a good idea. While admins should be careful when excercising their tools on topics they have opinions about, this would hamper many admins from being able to do their duties effectively and would give POV pushers an excuse to accuse admins who block them of violating this. For example, if we had an editor who insisted adding to the Jesus article the phrase "The Jews killed Jesus" I don't think we would need to search for an admin who didn't have a strong opinion about whether or not the statement was true in order to do a 3RR block. I think I am probably one of the admins who might be considered to have a strong POV on ID matters and I've blocked editors on both sides of the fence for POV pushing and incivility on related articles. I for one (and I suspect many other admins) would like that freedom. The bottom line is that when making people admins the community is saying that it trusts them to decide when they are too involved or too biased to make a block. Micromanaging their judgement calls will cause more problems than it would solve. JoshuaZ 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As a member of WikiProject:ID, I would like to know which of my administrative actions related to are egregious enough that they warrant restrictions of my use of admin powers in relation to topics like these. (Or should I now be posting as a party?) Guettarda 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See my note above. As long as you take a good look at the edited of a blocked user before you unblock them, I can't see a problem. Vandals are not divided into "good" vandals who agree with you and "bad" vandals who don't. Fred Bauder 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Good grief. I thought this was a logical extension of the principle that admins should not block editors with whom they are involved in editing disputes. Obviously yet another good reason I am not running for Arbcom. And maybe this is unnecessary anyway as admins who are passionate about a topic will probably be writing about it anyway. I was trying to identify a reason why desysopping FM for unblocking the Fisher accounts might be justified. Even if we accept the characterization of the Fisher accounts as single purpose attack accounts, what elevates the unblock from an ordinary error in judgement to a desysopping offense? Does the fact that FM has heavily edited the CML article create enough "involvement" that he should not have unblocked the Fishers, or is a broader principle needed? (Hypothetically, if a new editor joined and created a new 9/11 conspiracy article, do you think MONGO should speedy-delete it or would it be better if someone else did it?) Thatcher131 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All right, per Fred, this is going in a direction other than what I thought. Never mind. Thatcher131 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What elevates the unblock? Nothing, Fred's suggestion is flawed. But the correct response to a flawed proposal is to either point out the flaw, or ignore it and let it die a natural death. Responding with a proposed principle which says "let's censure people on the basis of their beliefs is about as bad an idea as I can imagine. Guettarda 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No matter what reasons are proposed to desysop in this case are irrelevant: the proposal is out of process. Period. Jim62sch 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As a matter of form, references to other administrators or editors uninvolved in the present case are fine in argumentation or by way of comparison, but I do not believe they should appear in the decision itself. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Patience

1) Enthusiastic but inexperienced users frequently commit gaffes such as intensively editing subjects they are involved with such as the article on themselves or their own research. However, if patiently corrected, many go on to become valued contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All too true. Patience is justified with such editors and their totally expected and excusable gaffs, but not for coordinated campaigns as is the case here. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I wonder if we have statistics on that. Jim62sch 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Administrative status

1) Administrators who misuse their tools by engaging in struggle with other users may be desysopped. As applied to this case, unblocking a single purpose attack account was grossly inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More grossly inappropriate than the painfully obvious wrongful block and abuse of admin tools in which that editor was summarily indefinitely blocked without warning and without any appropriate community discussion or input? I don't think so. Particularly considering evidence shows that Asmodeus and DrL have a long and well-established history of attacking and harassing those who oppose them to the degree that some have left the project, making single purpose accounts appear a reasonable method of self-preservation for anyone who wants to stand up against their campaign of self promotion. The unilateral blocking of Haldane Fisher by Cowman109 at the behest of Asmodeus and DrL, done completely outside of process, proves my point. FeloniousMonk 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

For clarification, Asmodeus did not ask me to block Haldane Fisher, I did it based on my own judgement without having even spoken to Asmodeus or any other parties in this case, seeing that the user's edits appeared to be blatant harassment of a single purpose account. When Asmodeus asked me to block the sockpuppet of Haldane Fisher, I instead resorted to speaking with the user instead of blocking. It may be a good idea to somehow add FeloniousMonk and me to the involved parties to this case if this becomes a part of the findings of fact, however. Cowman109^Talk 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You should have given Haldane Fisher a warning first and given him an opportunity to correct or justify his actions, which were not wholly inappropriate or unexpected. And failing there then a proposed block of Haldane Fisher should be been brought up at WP:AN/I. This would have been consistent with WP:BLOCK and established convention. Unilateral, summary blocks are almost anyways controversial, and those made without community input are almost always wrong. I'm not alone in this opinion. FeloniousMonk 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, exceptions would be vandalism only accounts which are regularly blocked, but that's just me wikilawyering :). The second account I did not block immediately and I tried to start a discussion, however, since it was clear the user will use different IPs and sockpuppets to continue his disruptive action. Cowman109^Talk 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you clasrify the last sentence -- it seems a bit unclear as if something is missing Jim62sch 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, there was contact from DrL to Cowman [7] before any action was taken [8]. Jim62sch 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If the user wasn't a single purpose account, I figured they would make an unblock request on their talk page, as the MediaWiki blocked text instructs them to do. This was not done, however, and instead the user went on to create a new account to continue their disruptive action. As to the contact from DrL to me, as I've stated above, this was in reference to the second single purpose account whom I did not block, and instead resorted to discussion. Cowman109^Talk 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It was a new user, though. Not every new user who is blocked within the first few days of editting knows how to follow the unblock request. Not every new user will know not to start sockpuppet accounts. -- ScienceApologist 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Attack accounts

1) Accounts created and used only for the purpose of attacking the subject of an article and their work may be indefinitely banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I concur. I should also note that after being repeatedly exposed to the unpleasant activities of Hal(dane) Fisher, I take serious exception to the claim (below) that I'm responsible for FeloniousMonk's decision to officially sponsor him. In point of fact, I've been far too busy trying to defend myself from accusations that I engaged in a "campaign of self-promotion" to actually engage in the campaign of self-promotion which allegedly brough Haldane Fisher into existence. (By the way, I hope nobody misinterprets FeloniousMonk's portentious references to "the evidence" as proof that "the evidence" implies what he says it implies. It seems to me that he simply links to every edit made by DrL or me, labels it "evidence", and randomly inserts it under the accusatory heading of his choice.) Asmodeus 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I don't care for SPAs myself, but Asmodeus' and DrL's own actions resulted in the appearence of SPAs. Evidence shows that both Asmodeus, here and DrL and here, have a long and well-established history of attacking and harassing those who oppose them to the degree that some have left the project. They've created a climate that makes single purpose accounts appear a reasonable method of self-preservation for anyone who wants to stand up against their campaign of self promotion. The unilateral blocking of Haldane Fisher by Cowman109 at the behest of Asmodeus and DrL, done completely outside of process, proves my point. FeloniousMonk 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Your "evidence" is just a string of edits from edit histories. I don't believe any are particularly egregious. The proposal narrows the definition of SPA. -- DrL 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've clarified the blocking of Haldane Fisher above. Cowman109^Talk 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See above. Jim62sch 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Blocked or banned ( WP:BAN)? For the purpose of an ArbCom remedy, this is vital to clear up. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 13:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban Fred Bauder 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yep, OK - normally, I see proposals where attack accounts are involved as being "blocked", but banning in this case seems fine. Just wanted to make sure :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Blocks for disruption

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, gives some background. Daniel.Bryant ^{[
T ·
C ]} 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Bogus request. Filers never followed through. -- DrL 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus is an aggressive and tendentious editor

3) Many of Asmodeus' edits are tendentious and with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. [11], [12]). He also introduces special pleading in support of fringe subjects (e.g. [13]). The degree of disruption he has caused is surprising given his limited mainspace edit history [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal is clearly incorrect. To see this, let's have a look at the edits cited in support of it.

11 - Only the 3rd and 5th (highlighted) "arguments against" were added by me. They are both perfectly valid...if anything, more so than the others.

12 - It is a widely-known fact that biologists are expected to accept Darwinism as a disciplinary canon. It is also widely known that most non-biologists do not have to accept Darwinism as a disciplinary canon (because it is irrelevant to their disciplines). Therefore, this edit is correct.

"Special pleading" is defined as "spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves...attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principal, etc. without justifying the exemption." Under this definition, I have done no "special pleading" here at Wikipedia.

13 - Here, I stated that "mainstream opinion can be highly resistant to correction even when wrong...rational ideas departing too sharply from the norm can thus be unfairly branded as "cranky"...so-called "cranks" are not always irrational...accusations of crankery can owe more to the ignorance or obstinacy of the accuser than to that of the accused." All very true, as common historical examples (from Galileo on up) have established to the satisfaction of virtually every educated person.

14 - Attempting to improve the balance and accuracy of slanted Wikipedia articles does not equate to "disruption".

Therefore, this proposal is unjustified, and its improper acceptence and ratification should be reversed. Asmodeus 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

At least part of 11 is the edit summary of "Please stop tampering with the argumentation".-- Prosfilaes 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus is uncivil

4) Many of Asmodeus' talk page comments and edit summaries are uncivil, attacking those attempting to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These citations do not establish incivility, particularly on the part of someone being subjected to harassment by those to whom they were addressed, several of whom were in clear and repeated violation of various aspects of WP. To see this, let's examine them in order.

15 - In light of Byrgenwulf's prior attacks, this request was perfectly justified.

16 - Again, perfectly justified.

17 - ABC news, Popular Science, Esquire magazine, etc., indeed qualify as (reasonably) reliable sources here at Wikipedia. The person to whom I was responding was denying this in violation of WP:RS.

18 - 1st paragraph: In light of his previous comments, it was perfectly valid for me to ask Mr. Rubin to recuse himself. 2nd paragraph: This is all quite true.

19 - 1st paragraph: All true and justifiable under WP:SPADE. 2nd paragraph: Although I regard this as 100% true, I can see where it might be regarded as a bit impatient. However, the person whom I was addressing was attacking a Wikipedia topic in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and various other policies.

20 - All completely true, and addressed to a person clearly violating WP:HARASS by specializing in all and only my edits after trying to pick a fight with me elsewhere.

21 - Perfectly true, and addressed to the same violator.

22 - All perfectly true, verifiable, and to the point...and addressed to someone engaging in harassment.

23 - A simple citation request, accompanied by a true statement.

24 - A perfectly legitimate request in full compliance with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

25 - Quite true - administrator JoshuaZ was making a verifiably false accusation on a clearly partisan basis.

These citations clearly do not establish what they purport to establish. Therefore, the acceptance and ratification of this proposal was unjustified and should be reversed. Asmodeus 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus' editing style

1) Asmodeus' editing style of Langan-related articles is characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits promoting/inflating Langan's viewpoints over those of mainstream science: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The CTMU, and for that matter I, are nowhere in disagreement with the content of mainstream science. The CTMU is in fact designed to unite the major theories of mainstream science in a general causal framework, and there is no reliable source which says that it is in any way opposed to or inconsistent with any aspect of real scientific knowledge. Therefore, Langan's viewpoints cannot have been "promoted/inflated over" those of mainstream science (a misconception which no doubt relates to FeloniousMonk's verifiably incorrect assertion that the CTMU is somehow identical to "Intelligent Design"). As far as "low-level edit warring" is concerned, this is an accusation with respect to which it is clearly appropriate to consider the general topical bias and concomitant unreliability of the source. Hence, the acceptance and ratification of this proposal is unjustified and should be reversed. Asmodeus 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Neither arbitrators nor verifiable science will rule on CTMU's agreement with mainstream science, but since you two brought it up: CTMU attempts to reduce the philosophy of science to computer code. That's like trying to reduce arbitrators and lawyers to computer code and automating them away; it vastly exaggerates the state of the art of artificial intelligence. Art LaPella 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't. That was simply a metaphor used by a reporter struggling to describe how the theory interprets the Church-Turing thesis with respect to deterministic processes. One would have to read more to go farther. Asmodeus 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, mathematical symbols resembling computer code. As it happens, the Church-Turing thesis is just the sort of thing the academic system taught me circa 1973 (and I haven't had reason to know about it since). So feel free to go farther. Probably not here - the arbitrators don't want to read too much technical stuff. Art LaPella 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Discourtesy by Asmodeus

1) Asmodeus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discourteous [52] [53]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

The first of these citations came on the heels of months of personal information harassment violating WP at my expense. Its tone is admittedly impatient, but certainly not insulting. The second is perfectly civil, particularly given the circumstances under which it was written (personal information harassment). This one's on the fence. But then again, a charge of occasional (exceptional) discourtesy can be leveled against virtually any experienced Wikipedian, including the vast majority of those taking part in these proceedings. Asmodeus 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Original research by Asmodeus

2) Asmodeus has engaged in original research [54] [55].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Let's have a look at the citations offered in support of this proposal.

53 - It is completely true that the statement "None [of the contributors to a book about Darwin's theory of evolutionary biology] is a biologist" can be explained by the fact that the book questions the integrity, credibility, and future prospects of that theory, given that biologists typically do not question the theory and would therefore be unlikely to contribute to such a volume.

54 - It is a widely-known fact that biologists are expected to accept Darwinism as a disciplinary canon. Hence, this assertion does not qualify as "original research".

The citations do not support the proposal. Therefore, the ratification of this proposal should be reversed. Asmodeus 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Asmodeus area of editing

1) Asmodeus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in his editing concentrated on the set of subjects associated with Christopher Michael Langan, an independent scholar noted for original research. In this context "original research" means advancement of original ideas outside traditional academic venues such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FeloniousMonk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Like some other Wikipedia editors, I only have a limited amount of time to spend here (I'm presently making an exception due to this RfAr). Obviously, when a topic of intellectual interest to a given editor is under constant attack by those intent on distorting and disparaging it, he is forced to spend a larger percentage of his available time in defending it. Meanwhile, if he is also being followed around Wikipedia by some of the same people, who specialize in disputing or tampering with his edits to any article he touches, he naturally comes to regard it as a waste of time to generate material that is sure to be removed, regardless of relevance and verification, by those engaging in this particular form of harassment. Speaking for myself, I'd very much like to have the option of editing anywhere I choose in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it has become clear to me that I don't really have that option. Anything I write on any topic, from Crank (person) to Academic Elitism, will be subject to "special challenges", or "nuisance demands", or whatever one wishes to call them, which cannot under any circumstances be answered to the satisfaction of the challengers (many of whom seem to be personally motivated by their animosity toward me and Christopher Michael Langan). This is obviously an extreme deterrent, and in my case, has resulted in what may look to some like a skewed topical focus. Far from enjoying this situation, I am seriously bothered by it, and must point out that as long as certain people here are allowed to specialize in my case, they - and those who condone their activities - will continue to hold the bag regarding its causation. Asmodeus 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I fail to see how a request to cite your edits [56] amounts to a "special challenge", and I fail to see why it would be so hard to answer, unless of course what you were adding was WP:OR that shouldn't have been added.-- Prosfilaes 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

But as you know, none of the arguments for or against was specifically referenced, and some of the former even used pejorative terminology like "crank" and "idiot". Therefore, you need to explain why you repeatedly attacked only my edits, even after these issues were duly brought to your attention. As we've established, you can't do that. That's why I was forced to complain on WP:ANI about your harassment. Asmodeus 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We established no such thing. The other arguments were connected to the collection of references at the bottom and likely could be cited; your edits were original research by your own admission. You need to explain why you kept adding the arguments, after the fact that you needed to cite them came to your attention.-- Prosfilaes 16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright then, I established it. To wit, I looked at the arguments and saw no citations of the generic references at the bottom of the page. I asked you to match the arguments - all of which looked as though they'd been added without regard for the citations, and some of which even contained pejorative terminology like "crank" and "idiot" - with the references, per your objections to my edits. You failed to comply. Instead, you simply continued to go back and erase my, and only my, additions to the article, which were every bit as cogent as anyone else's (except perhaps to an obsequious academic cheerleader, no accusations implied). Then, adding insult to injury, you ran off to complain that I had "broken 3rr", prompting an administrator to block me. In other words, you subjected me to harassment and gamed the system, violating WP in the process. You know very well what you did, so please don't waste my time and that of the arbitrators with any more of this nonsense. Thanks, Asmodeus 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You did violate 3RR. It is each editor's responsibility to follow Wikipedia policies including 3RR, and to point out that another editor has failed to do so is not gaming the system. You broke both WP:3RR and WP:V; that was your own choice and your own responsibility.-- Prosfilaes 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

DrL

1) DrL ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits articles related to Christopher Michael Langan in a disruptive way Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#DrL_ignores_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:NOT.2C_WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I do not edit in a disruptive way. I stick to verifiable facts and encourage others not to post opinion and conjecture or misrepresent sources. -- DrL 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Hal Fisher

1) Hal Fisher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [57] Haldane Fisher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [58] are accounts which are mainly devoted to opposition to Christopher Michael Langan and Asmodeus who they identify as being him, often posting comments to that effect. example of a nasty edit

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Personal attack troll Fisher clearly needs to be permabanned. Just a few of examples of his most recent monkeyshines:

Hal(dane) Fisher, speculating on DrL's identity, attempts to reveal the place of employment of DrL in direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS: 1; 2

Hal(dane) Fisher defaces Tim Smith's "Articles I've Written" page in violation of WP:HARASS: 3

Of course, the likelihood is that Fisher, or the person for whom Fisher is a sockpuppet, will simply register another bogus account and resume his vandalism. But something clearly needs to be done now. The picture of Fisher, an obvious and unregenerate troll, making an utter mockery of Wikipedia's enforcement mechanisms in order to willfully disrupt an ArbCom proceeding, and doing so under the aegis of rogue administrator FeloniousMonk and his homeboys from WikiProject ID, is beyond ludicrous. Asmodeus 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk

1) Haldane Fisher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been blocked for harassing Asmodeus by Cowman109 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [59]. When Hal Fisher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on November 27 and engaged in the same activity he was warned by Cowman109 [60]. FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) responded to this warning with a post characterizing Cowman109's warning as harassment [61], stating, "Hal is doing just fine as far as I have seen." He then unblocked Haldane Fisher [62].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Although Fisher was initially blocked for attempting to reveal personal information in violation of WP:HARASS, he had also committed at least one other form of personal harassment against me: reverting all and only my edits to the several articles that he vandalized. In addition, he committed clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:LIVING right here (see edit summary). Thus, although Cowman109 cited only the first of these violations in blocking him, there was ample additional justification for the block. Below, we see Guettarda attempting to rationalize the violation which was cited for the block - disclosure of personal information - but this rationalization fails to address the other violations of which Fisher was already guilty at the time. Therefore, this rationalization cannot justify the lifting of the block by FeloniousMonk. Although FeloniousMonk claims to have carefully reviewed the situation before acting, it is clear that he either did not (for otherwise, he would have seen all of Fisher's violations and left the block in place), or that he consciously overlooked all of Fisher's violations and lifted the block in the full knowledge that Fisher was nothing but an "attack troll" who would continue to make a vicious mockery of Wikipedia policy. In neither case was FeloniousMonk justified in removing the block. Asmodeus 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

He was blocked for "revealing personal information", something which, as has been demonstrated here, was neither a "revelation", nor was it something that Asmodeus has made a real attempt to hide. Based on this case, its obvious that the rationale for the block was in error. While Hal[dane] Fisher has obviously contempt for Langan, and a case could probably be made for restricting his edits to that article, I don't see that a clear case was made for a ban (e.g., a posting to AN/I). With no case made for a community block, I fail to see how FM's unblock is a major issue. Guettarda 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My unblocking of Haldane Fisher was meant to remedy what in my view was an painfully obvious wrongful block and abuse of admin tools. User:Cowman109 indefinitely blocked User:Haldane Fisher without any prior warning or community discussion: [63] [64] [65] Haldane Fisher was simply repeating the same quite valid point raised by User:Hillman, ScienceApologist and many others: that Asmodeus and DrL are serially violating WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:NOT to conduct a pov campaign of self-promotion on the project. And his method was not unreasonable or trollish, [66] [67], and remained quite reasonable until he was repeatedly attacked by Asmodeus and DrL and summarily blocked by Cowman109. And considering the treatment he received for his effort I feel his response has been understandable. Summary, unilateral blocks without warning for adding Notable Wikipedian tags to articles or noting in edit summaries that an editor is obviously involved with the topic and violating policy are not supported by policy; there is nothing in WP:BLOCK that would indicate that Cowman109's block of Haldane Fisher was anything but a wrongful block. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You claim that "he was repeatedly attacked by Asmodeus and DrL" and I sincerely have no recollection of that. Please provide those diffs or remove that otherwise unsupported charge. -- DrL 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ScienceApologist's suspicions

1) On November 9, 2006 ScienceApologist began to suspect that Asmodeus was Christopher Michael Langan. He posted to Wikipedia talk:Autobiography requesting advice [68] and left a polite note on User talk:Asmodeus [69]]. When Asmodeus responded aggressively [70] [71], he voiced his suspicions in an aggressive way [72].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

ScienceApologist knows how to flame, but since the above doesn't criticize the content of what ScienceApologist wrote, I don't see how ScienceApologist could have put this much more nicely - without removing his veiled subtext that would sound worse written in plain English, like this since ScienceApologist's facts weren't challenged here: Asmodeus/Langan has some nerve editing articles related to himself to add pseudoscience, and then defending himself by counterattacking with the little-known harassment policy, thus proving he knows better. Art LaPella 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Harassment is a guideline, not a policy, and as I pointed out to Asmodeus when he first mentioned it, I'm pretty sure that these are some of the extenuating circumstances when rigid interpretation of the guideline needs to be relaxes, especially considering that there are WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues here. -- ScienceApologist 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Note Art LaPella's counterfactual statement to the effect that I've added "pseudoscience" to Christopher Michael Langan. What he seems to be saying is that any serious reference to the work of Christopher Michael Langan is "pseudoscience", which insinuation is not only insupportable and ridiculous, but also a clear violation of WP:LIVING. Apparently seizing on this illicit opportunity, ScienceApologist has followed up with the opinion that since any attempt to protect the CML bio from biased editing by him and his fellow ID critics is (supposedly) a "conflict of interest", he should be allowed to harass the would-be protectors at his pleasure. In fact, the only "WP:COI and WP:AUTO issue" here is the abuse of these handy punish-the-criminal-before-he-commits-the-crime guidelines as a rationalization for the open harassment, by philosophically biased editors, of those with whom they disagree. Asmodeus 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Although CTMU is pseudoscience, note that wasn't my point here: I was just explaining why ScienceApologist was not being "aggressive" as charged at the beginning of this section. Art LaPella 07:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Edits to an article's talk page are encouraged in cases of COI, edits to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are encouraged in cases of violation of WP:LIVING, and edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents are encouraged in case of an incident that requires assistance from an admin (such as to report abuse/misconduct from another admin). Editing a page you have a COI about is not encouraged. Unpleasant back and forth talk that simply disrupts or poisons the atmosphere is not encouraged. WAS 4.250 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Right across the border from Missouri (and I do mean right across)...how 'bout that. (Of course it could be DrL). Anyway, perfect area for a horse ranch, too, the Iowa-Missouri border. Jim62sch 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The second reference above ( [90] ) is clearly not merely a typographical edit. We can argue whether it's a "good faith" edit, but "sophisticated mathematical construct" is not something that should be in Wikipedia, even if it were true. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting opinion, Arthur. I suppose that you could argue about the modifier "sophisticated", albeit unconvincingly given the unique form of the construction. But I don't think that you could convincingly argue, in apparent contravention of WP:AGF, that the edit was not in good faith, given that it says absolutely nothing about whether or not the CTMU is correct. Asmodeus 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If 216.139.113.98 is CML or a relative, then the edit is a clear violation of WP:AUTO. Considering the history of complaints against Asmodeus and DrL, whether or not justified, it's clear they were both aware of WP:AUTO at that time. Violating, with full knowledge, WP:AUTO, strikes me as a violation of good faith. (And we're allowed to put 2 and 2 together in these discussion, and in talk pages, even if we're not allowed to in articles.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You've edited your own bio twice, Arthur. I suspect that you misrepresented your age. Furthermore, I suspect that if you send me a scan of your birth certificate, it will be forged. Therefore, I think you've violated WP:AUTO. Just like you, I put 2 and 2 together; just like you, I deny that I'm violating WP:AGF in the process. And do you want to know the best part of all? I do so with exactly the same kinds of arguments you've tried to use against me, minus the anti-ID POV. So please, enough. Asmodeus 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ScienceApologist is uncivil

1) ScienceApologist's repeated use of harsh language is uncivil: "gibberish" "ridiculously long-winded version" "this article needs to be trashed"; "still a sham" "most of the article appears to be in a horrendous state" "ridiculous"; "The current sentence in the article is awful"; "This paragraph you wrote is terrible"; "Your proposal...is ridiculous" "More baiting from the peanut gallery" "nonsense" "fancruft" "Langan-original-research-vanity-cruft"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is all rather tepid and tame compared to the evidence of incivility presented for Asmodeus. Are we grading on a curve now? FeloniousMonk 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Science Apologist is often uncivil. His incivility has a disruptive effect on the areas he is editing within the encyclopedia. -- DrL 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Most of these comments are not uncivil but are descriptions of his opinion of article content. And while there may be a tendency to discourage use of *cruft terms they aren't inherently uncivil. (And Fred did make a comment earlier about it being good to call spades spades). JoshuaZ 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Par for the course in deletion debates (which is basically what this was, a call for deletion). Guettarda 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Deprecation by ScienceApologist

1) Sometimes using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated Langan's work: "Lagan's junk" "really not all that revolutionary nor is it very clever" "certainly can categorize it under pseudoscience" "ID is to empricism as CTMU is to metaphysics" "Langan's musings" "flights-of-fancy" "That makes CTMU a pseudoscience"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, more energy than appropriate. Enough that it is original research that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- DrL 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Emphatically agreed. In addition to violating WP:OR, several of these extremely unkind remarks constitute transparent personal attacks against a Wikipedia bio subject in violation of WP:LIVING and various other policies. That is, they contain snidely phrased negative judgments on the content and validity of Langan's theory, and thus on the competence of Langan himself...judgments which ScienceApologist evidently means to pass off as the "expert opinion" of (one of) Wikipedia's resident "cosmology expert(s)". Such forbidden content/validity judgments are well outside the range of anything that Wikipedia can hope to accomplish in the large, and thus threaten to disrupt its operation and ultimately damage its credibility. Moreover, they unavoidably call into question the supposed expert qualifications of ScienceApologist himself, who seems to be widely credited as a cosmology and general science expert here at Wikipedia. (While I understand that a given editor's qualifications are usually considered to be off-limits, this case highlights an exception. Specifically, when a soi-disant "expert" shatters WP by making extremely unkind and possibly misleading content/validity judgments at the expense of a Wikipedia bio subject and his work, such questions clearly need to be asked, and appropriate verification needs to be provided. After all, ScienceApologist displays what might be considered an extreme level of concern over the qualifications of Christopher Michael Langan himself, indicating that qualifications are extremely important to him. Under these circumstances, he should be more than willing to establish his own credentials, or at least put on a live demonstration of expertise, in the actual field of Langan's intellectual contributions.) Asmodeus 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This proposal is irrelevant. He has given descriptions of his opinions of the subject at hand and in fact what most of the scientific community seems to think about Langan's ideas. SA is entitled to his opinions. In any event, I fail to see how such deprecation is at all relevant to the matter at hand unless Tim thinks that criticizing Langan's ideas should be not allowed. JoshuaZ 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See WP:SPADE. There is nothing wrong with calling it like it is. Have you read Langan's stuff on the CTMU? Guettarda 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Have you? Your question seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to reinforce ScienceApologist's unkind assertions and insinuations. From this, one might infer that you're under the impression that personal opinions regarding the value or validity Langan's work - which could as easily reflect your own bias and incomprehension as the quality of that work itself - have legitimate weight with respect to its treatment here. If so, you're mistaken. It was entirely sufficient for the inclusion of the CTMU article that reliable, verifiable mass media secondary sources were duly provided for it. Its deletion by opinionated editors like you is exactly the kind of POV-driven travesty that Wikipedia needs to avoid in the future. Asmodeus 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I read the ISCID paper. It's typical of self-published work - no one has bothered to point out the obvious logical flaws to the author or tried to get him to improve his prose. Guettarda 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it really isn't terribly important. There was another person here, Byrgenwulf, who claimed to be an expert in the philosophy of physics. He attempted to point out all of the "logical flaws" in Langan's work, and was so sure of himself that when I disagreed with him, he insisted on engaging me in a debate. Having gotten fed up with his posing, I obliged him and explicitly caught him in many fundamental technical errors. On the basis of your remarks here, I don't think you'd fare any better than he did. But in the final analysis, it really doesn't matter, because the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia do not include the validity or conceptual integrity of the topics covered. This is something that I think everyone at Wikipedia needs to get straight: to make a personal validity judgment about a particular concept or theory is to engage in original research, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. As an editor and administrator, you should know this. Asmodeus 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ScienceApologist's failure to extend good faith

1) ScienceApologist has failed to extend good faith: "two users engaged in POV-pushing"; "may be a sockpuppet" "promoted by the group of MENSA-allies" "dragging one's feet in an attempt to get one's way" "Not buying your evangelism attempts, sorry" "acts very much like a meat puppet" "sockpuppets" "this can only be described as POV-pushing" "Sour grapes" "POV-fork"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal seems to ignore the "not required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" clause of WP:AGF. That, and there's been nop shortage of evidence to the contrary. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. There is no evidence to prove that others are not good faith editors. There has been no evidence presented that supports that contention. In spite of that, Science Apologist does not extend this Wikipedia convention as the above examples clearly point out. -- DrL 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Possibly some mild failures of AGF. Many of the above difs are at best irrelevant- for example the dif where he says "this can only be described as POV-pushing" seems if anything to be an example of assuming good faith in that he doesn't just call it POV pushing. Similarly, he says that an editors acted like meat puppet, not that the editor was a meat puppet). Furthermore, given that the two main users in question turned out to be precisely who SA said they were its hard to see how what he did wrong. JoshuaZ 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This argument falsely assumes that one cannot have a stake in an article and be a good faith editor at the same time. That is simply not true. -- DrL 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it assumes that failure to edit consistently with WP:AUTO and WP:COI is strong indicator of bad faith. Incidentally, I note that you didn't bring up the other assumption in the statement- that you and Asmodeus are who I assumed you are. Does that mean you've admitted that? JoshuaZ 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it means that your logic is flawed as far as I can tell. -- DrL 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Please explain. So do you think that I shouldn't make the conclusion that you and Asmodeus are Chris and his wife? JoshuaZ 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Please, its not all that relevant. User:William M. Connolley has edited William Connolley and User:Fys has edited David Boothroyd and neither has been sanctioned. It is the manner of the edits and the behavior of the editor that is at issue. See the talk page for extended comments. Thatcher131 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (I'm busy and this requires more thought; I'll post them soon) Thatcher131 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

FeloniousMonk is uncivil

1) FeloniousMonk is uncivil: "chronic pov-pushing edit warrior" "bullying" "baseless"; "ridiculous" "You've got to be kidding me" "give it a rest" "incessant reverting"; "lip service" "The edits of this contributor are suspect" "bogus" "Scofflaws"; "misdeeds" "shabby attempt to game the system" "whitewashing" "excerise in hagiography" "hectoring and badgering" "abject pseudoscience"; "tag teams" "thumb their noses at the community" "POV bowdlerizing" "harassed into silence"; "run roughshod over the community"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Felonious Monk has been extremely uncivil as the above edits illustrate. In addition to the incivility that FM inserts into communication between editors, there is also a dearth of civil, supportive comments. This editing style promotes tension between editors and destabilizes the editing process. -- DrL 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

How, pray tell, is this "incivil"? It's descriptive. See WP:SPADE. Guettarda 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

FeloniousMonk's failure to extend good faith

1) FeloniousMonk has failed to extend good faith: "pov campaign"; "shabby attempt to game the system" "chronic pov-pushing edit warrior" "system gaming; fringe-pov-promoting" "clearly not meant to improve the article" "meant to intimidate those you oppose" "meat puppetry" "lip service" "POV bowdlerizing" "campaign of self promotion" "You're simply trying to spin and control the presentation of facts" "promoting a particular POV" "Please, give us a break with the spinning of this" "bullying"; "pov campaign" "attempts to game the system"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Felonious Monk typically fails to assume good faith as the above edits illustrate. Note that in addition to this negative activity, there is also a lack of civil and collegial edits. This promotes a breakdown of communication between editors in the articles that he edits. -- DrL 22:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

See WP:SPADE. Guettarda 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Previous findings and remedies regarding FeloniousMonk

1) In a previous arbitration case, FeloniousMonk was admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. In another case, FeloniousMonk was found to have edit warred and was warned to remember WP:NPOV, to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes, and to not make a hatchet job of the articles affected by the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as background. Tim Smith 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Previous findings and remedies regarding ScienceApologist

1) In a previous arbitration case, ScienceApologist was found to have been uncivil, to have deprecated a number of persons and their theories using strong negative language, to have edit warred, and to have failed to extend good faith. He was cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science, particularly in matters of good faith and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as background. Tim Smith 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Posting of speculative personal information by Asmodeus

1) Asmodeus repeatedly posted personal information about Byrgenwulf in an attempt to discredit him and possibly also to harass him. [91] [92]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not good. Fred Bauder 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you mean that to apply to.-- Prosfilaes 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The facts: This is hardly justified, as anyone would know who has bothered to educate himself on the background of this case. Byrgenwulf - a vicious troll whose opening act has been very well documented (he came here from a predominantly atheist-materialist website called the Brights.net for the express purpose of calling Mr. Langan a "crank" and his work "pseudoscience") - voluntarily revealed personal, in fact professional, information about himself, claiming to "work in the field" of "the philosophy of physics". He did this in an obvious attempt to lend weight to his absurd, tendentious claims of "logical errors" in the CTMU. The joke, of course, was that a number of the "experts" in this very RfAr were effortlessly suckered in by his transparent misrepresentations. To anyone with the knowledge that this person falsely claimed to possess, it was obvious from the beginning that he lied about his expertise in order to do as much damage as possible to CML and his work. Therefore, it was arguably appropriate to check his credentials (which were found decidedly wanting, as no doubt are those of many of the on-site "experts" here). I was inexperienced at the time, and made the honest mistake of revealing what I'd found; having been unmasked fair and square, the troll owned up. After it was pointed out to me that this was a violation of the rules, I never repeated the infraction (except with respect to the phony "expert" himself, and I immediately complied with his subsequent request that I not use his real name)...even when I was myself subjected to protracted personal information harassment by various other parties. Please, a little objectivity here. Asmodeus 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Posted. I find this horribly hypocritical behavior, considering Asmodeus's strongly negative response to even ScienceApologist's first tentative identification of him.-- Prosfilaes 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is absurd. Asmodeus pleads ignorance of the rules for his exposing another Wikipedian's RL identity. However, there is no indication that he is regrets this action, despite now having brought forth an arbitration case expressly related to this. Ignorance of the law is often an excuse on Wikipedia (as per WP:BITE), but there is also a principle of admitting when you were wrong. -- ScienceApologist 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The indicator you're seeking is (e.g.) that I refrained from repeating the infraction even when I had nothing to lose by doing exactly the same to you as you've been doing to me. I have no faith in your qualifications whatsoever - that's my well-considered opinion after reading your bigoted knee-jerk comments on Langan's work - yet I've refrained from using your former wikiname on this site. Asmodeus 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

So do you regret "outing" Byrgenwulf? -- ScienceApologist 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. I unintentionally broke the rules, and I probably wouldn't have done so had I known the score. In retrospect, I could simply have described my search procedure, the kind of information it revealed, and its failure to confirm adequate proof of Byrgenwulf's status as a professional philosopher of physics. But I also wish I'd at least had the time to familiarize myself with all of the rules before being thrown into the middle of an uninvited conflict in which no administrator was willing to lend me a helping hand (quite the opposite, in fact). As it turned out, Byrgenwulf eventually destroyed his own "expert credentials" at first hand, simply by making various technical errors and other unjustifiable statements in which he could be easily caught. Yes, I made a mistake...and in fact, I seem to recall apologizing for it at the time. But as much of an apology as I may have owed the community for this infraction, it owes itself an even greater apology for what it allowed a troll and his gulls to do to a perfectly legitimate, well verified article. Asmodeus 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As qualified as this statement is, I consider this a step at least in the right direction, and so I thank Asmodeus for the olive branch and will try to extend my own. For most of this arbitration (indeed your entire stint here on Wikipedia) you have been coming across as a person who is unwilling to admit to problems associated with your own actions. This last comment is at least an acknowledgement that you are fallible. I don't quite buy your oblique complaint about being bitten since it seems apparent to me that you are more than capable of adopting the language and syntax of Wikipedia rather quickly (you quoted policy and guidelines, chapter and verse, from almost the get-go), but I will acknowledge that you are a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and may not be completely up on Wikipedia culture. For what it's worth, I think you have the potential to be a wonderful contributor to Wikipedia if you would just step away from this whole conflict, take a deep breath, and then edit completely unrelated articles. As it is, you're a pretty singular contributor and have indicated that you probably don't want to spend much time here except that you took exception to the CML pieces of Wikipedia. That rubs me the wrong way.

For my part, certain people have routinely criticized me for being abrasive, aggressive, and oppositional to those who tick me off. Inasmuch as this is the opinion of certain people, there is really nothing for this except for me to try my best at balancing my desire to be uncompromisingly editorial while at the same time being civil and assuming good faith. Wikipedia is not a love-fest, but neither is it a trial by ordeal. We are here to write an encyclopedia. I think that the best way to do this is to be as critical as possible, and sometimes those editors who disagree with this approach believe that criticism runs the risk of crossing the bounds of civility/good faith assumption. However, I choose to run that risk because ultimately I know firsthand how many people use Wikipedia as a resource and I think maintaining an acute critical editorial sense is a must if we are to maintain whatever modicum of respectability is possible for an encyclopedia that anybody can edit.

This is my view of the situation: I came to Christopher Michael Langan through CTMU and discussions about pseudoscience articles. I was working at the time on Gordon Pask whose article was very similar to CTMU/Langan's article when I saw the AfD for CTMU, I knew that if there was a fork of Pask's ideas into a new article, I would expect a deletion as well. So I voted the way I did. When the article was deleted, some of the POV-issues I saw (in terms of verifiability, reliability, etc.) seemed to transfer. The issue you seemed to be most upset about was intelligent design. However, the objections Langan made to the scientific consensus about the modern synthesis was clear. His particular perspective placed him in prime location to ally himself with intelligent design, and he had done so through the ISCID group. Now, maybe he didn't know that the ISCID group was as tied to ID as it seems to be. Maybe he thought that by avoiding direct association with the Discovery Institute, he would avoid the taint of ID. I don't know, and that issue is unverifiable. However, that ISCID is associated with the intelligent design movement is undeniable. Does that make Langan a proponent of Intelligent Design? No. Does that make Langan pseudoscientific? No. But the association is verifiable and true and of interest to readers, I believe.

So there you have it, that's my take. I can't be any more honest than I've just been. I do think that you have a conflict of interest you haven't quite owned up to yet, but I'm holding out hope. As it is, I respect your privacy, and since I really have nothing more to say on the matter, I'm going to remove this arbitration from my watchlist and remove all references to you. I'm going to keep Christopher Michael Langan on my watchlist and will continue to check it for accuracy, verifiability, and NPOV, but other than that I don't see any virtue in continuing this already seemingly overblown discussion.

If you want to contact me, please do so on my talkpage.

-- ScienceApologist 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Irregular, but it's one way for ScienceApologist to stop himself from lashing back, without always staying completely focused on what he objects to. Art LaPella 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

DrL's edits to Christopher Michael Langan

1) DrL's edits to Christopher Michael Langan have been in conformance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Asmodeus 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously true. To meaningfully dispute this proposed finding of fact, one would need to find a significant number of edits (i.e., a "pattern" of edits) made by DrL which, demonstrably and in full context, deviate from WP. Although FeloniousMonk has absurdly linked to all of her edits as "evidence" of policy violations, we have yet to see a single example of an edit made in clear violation of any of the above policies....and where these policies have not been violated, WP:AUTO and WP:COI cannot have been violated either (irrespective of what is or is not "frowned upon" by various judgmental parties). All we now have are opinionative statements to the effect that she "aggressively" or "improperly" edited the article, when in point of fact, she edited it no more aggressively (indeed less so) than the people whose violations of the above policies she was attempting to ameliorate in a defensive capacity in full conformance with WP. As any neutral observer might readily confirm, this does not even come close to justifying the sanctions pending against her. Anyone who claims that modifying irrelevant, unverified, or obviously biased statements improperly added to the article violates any Wikipedia policy is simply mistaken about Wikipedia policy. Asmodeus 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Not obviously true. If DrL is associated with Langan, then her repeated attempts to remove sourced criticism, even if of questionable accuracy, are violations of WP:NPOV. If not, then the best (most favorable to DrL) we can say is "not proven". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Gosh, that's awfully unkind coming from someone on whose very own talk page DrL has made (unfortunately Sisyphean) attempts to cooperate and find middle ground, particularly when he's one of the people whose non-NPOV edits have repeatedly found their way into the article, and especially when he has recently threatened, along with several others involved in this RfAr, to place irrelevant information about legal harassment (and potentially ongoing litigation) provided by the litigious parties themselves in the article despite explicit objections! Legal harassment aside, WP:BLP makes it very clear that negative information has a higher standard of verification in the biographies of living people; this means that sources "of questionable accuracy" are not sufficient to verify such statements. Therefore, DrL can remove them without violating WP. (Would you happen to have any specific edits you'd like us to examine? As far as I can determine, DrL is a good-faith editor who scrupulously strives for balance and accuracy.) Asmodeus 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Asmodeus banned

1) Asmodeus is banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan, Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), Academic elitism, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ban might as well be permanent. Fred Bauder 17:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

With all due respect to the arbitrators, this is absurd. I haven't edited Christopher Michael Langan for nearly five (5) months...and the last time I did, it was to correct a verifiably false assertion (Jonathan Wells is not the founder of ISCID). Since that time, the article has been repeatedly attacked in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, but not once by me. In short, the article has been shown to be under attack on personal and philosophical grounds, but instead of sanctioning those attacking it, the arbitrators have somehow determined that the purported subject of the article should be sanctioned instead! Here, it becomes painfully evident that there is an unwritten, discriminatory penalty at Wikipedia for being accused of being identical to a notable biography subject who also happens, through no fault of his own, to be perceived as controversial, whether or not he is in violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. This is blatantly inconsistent with the letter and spirit of WP in virtually every respect...a travesty. Given that the bio in question is now under a standing threat of attack, groundlessly tying the hands of one of the only people who might care enough to protect its accuracy and neutrality is simply unconscionable. Inasmuch as this amounts to deliberately exposing a Wikipedia biography subject to attack by non-notable parties engaging in potentially ongoing nuisance litigation against him - in fact, to outright libel by those parties - I strongly urge the arbitrators to reconsider. (As far as concerns the idea that Langan's work relates in any way to "academic elitism", that's asinine. But it's even worse to ratify a proposal which tacitly asserts that the article Crank (person) relates to Langan's work. What could you possibly have been thinking?) Asmodeus 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Editing of those articles has been hotly contested by you. It is not Christopher Michael Langan that is being banned, but you. Fred Bauder 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That's blatantly false, Fred. I haven't edited the CML bio for going on five months, and the evidence clearly shows that the CTMU article was being attacked in violation of WP. Of course I tried to protect it, and I was perfectly justified in doing so under WP itself. As far as Academic Elitism is concerned, I merely added a set of plausible arguments to already existing arguments, but all and only my edits were repeatedly reverted by Prosfilaes. Are you under the impression that this is consistent with WP? If so, then why do you think that? (I can find no element of WP that's even close to justifying your position there.) And the Crank (person) snafu...in my opinion, there's simply no excuse for it. Arbitrator Charles Matthews has made it quite clear that indirectly insulting CML is exactly what the bunch of you intended to do: "We can impose a topic area ban as remedy, without justifying it article by article" 1 (note the phrase "topic area ban", which belies your claim that you merely intended to ban me from articles I've "hotly contested"). I.e., same general topic, no need to distinguish between the articles. It's a disgrace. There's simply no way around it, and there's no excuse for it. You've openly, proudly, and intransigently displayed your bias, and that's it. (Not only did you insultingly lump the "crank" article in with articles (supposedly) pertaining to the work of Christopher Michael Langan, but I never even edited it improperly. All I did was try to add a small paragraph that I let be eliminated after a couple of tries, and remove a blatant advert for "crank.net". So what's the problem, other than your very clear negative opinion of me, and Langan, and his work?) Asmodeus 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The proposal doesn't assert that. It doesn't even say anything about Langan's work. It asserts that Asmodeus is banned from editing Crank (person) and Asmodeus is banned from editing any article relating to Asmodeus's real life work.-- Prosfilaes 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I also wouldn't consider the bio under a standing threat of attack. Adding some information that Langan lost a completely verifable court case is hardly an attack.-- Prosfilaes 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If adopted (I haven't studied the case carefully and have no view), section header should read "... banned from certain pages" as just "banned" suggests banned from the entire project. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That's just the heading. Fred Bauder 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand that, of course, but the heading is sometimes used as a basis for things like the Signpost description of the status or result of the case that is sent to thousands of users. While of course the heading is only a summary of what is written below, I believe an effort should be made not to have it be potentially inadvertently misleading. I have seen that sort of thing happen. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus placed on Probation

2) Asmodeus is placed on probation for a year. He may be banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probation might as well be indefinite. Fred Bauder 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus cautioned

3) Asmodeus is cautioned to be courteous to other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DrL

4) All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

My edits and rationale are actually quite reasonable, if anyone wants to look at my contribs to check. I strive to edit within the guidelines and when challenged, I am willing to collaborate and work with other editors. I do wish there was more of a sense of collaboration instead of an "us" v. "them" mentality and I try to communicate with other editors to facilitate positive change. -- DrL 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We seem to have a bit of confusion regarding DrL's editing of the article Christopher Michael Langan. This is not an ordinary biography in peril of becoming a hagiography; it is an article which has been under almost constant attack for the last several months by people who bear its subject nothing but ill will and are determined to paint him as the worst sort of creationist crackpot. If not for DrL's valiant attempts to maintain its accuracy and neutrality against desperate odds - if not for her willingness to stand one against many - the article would now be in a despicable state, and its subject would have become what amounts to a Wikipedia libel victim. This is not because Wikipedia means to do this sort of thing to notable people; it is because Wikipedia harbors militants and activists who hate the Intelligent Design Movement and anyone remotely connected to it, even through just a single affiliation. In early July, these fanatics found the article, and ever since, have been crawling all over it and relentlessly hounding the person whom they believe to be identical to its subject (me). Wikipedia owes DrL an enormous debt of gratitude for championing its values and resisting these attacks while her valor and patience were repaid with nothing but misery. At this point, denying that she has performed an invaluable service for the Wikipedia Project would be height of ingratitude and the nadir of reason. She deserves applause, not threats of censure and restriction. Asmodeus 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I am confused. Why are DrL and Asmodeus effectively being rolled into one? They have not been established to be the same person. David Mestel^(
Talk) 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I haven't taken the time to poke through all of DrL's edits, but they do use the same IP address and are believed to be a husband and wife team. In this RfA, I haven't seen them disagree once, or give any indication they aren't acting in concert. However, DrL does seem to have at least some edits not on Asmodeus's limited topic lists.-- Prosfilaes 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Tim Smith

4a) All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to Tim Smith ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tim Smith is an excellent Wikipedia editor. His edits are balanced and accurate. I have never had any communication with Tim Smith outside of Wikipedia. -- DrL 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The idea that Tim Smith is a "meatpuppet" is simply insulting. Mr. Smith does not merely echo my views, or as nearly as I can tell, those of CML. I do not know Mr. Smith and had never encountered him prior to finding one of his articles in Wikipedia. Even after becoming aware of Mr. Smith's existence here, I have contacted him only minimally and never attempted to put words in his mouth or make him adopt a particular viewpoint, nor do I have any expectation that he would do so if asked. Anyone who denies any of these facts is making baseless, unverified accusations in violation of Wikipedia policy. [Has anyone else around here ever wondered why anybody displaying the slightest agreement with me (Asmodeus) is snidely accused of being a "meatpuppet", while ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, and their various partisans can mercilessly tag-team their common opponents in what might credibly if somewhat bluntly be described as a collusive orgy of mutual meatpuppetry without fear of censure? It's positively bizarre.] Asmodeus 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Tim Smith acts very much like a meat puppet along with this crew. -- ScienceApologist 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've expressed this same concern about Tim Smith and meat puppetry myself. I've found Tim Smith hectoring and badgering those who oppose Asmodeus and DrL with bogus "warnings" on their user talk pages, something I've previously cautioned him against. FeloniousMonk 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

FeloniousMonk

5) FeloniousMonk is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Probably not as serious as I thought. Fred Bauder 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Abuse of responsibility is abuse of responsibility, and desysopping is entirely appropriate in this case. That the Haldane Fisher account needed to be blocked immediately was evident from three facts: (1) it was brand new and echoed the charges being leveled by one side in an ongoing dispute (but more viciously), (2) it was being used for the single purpose of violating WP:LIVING, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS, and (3) it was generating constant damage against CML ("crank", etc.) and against me (personal information harassment). As I see it, there is no question whatsoever that Cowman109 did precisely the right thing. FeloniousMonk, being equally aware of these three facts, unquestionably did the wrong thing, evidently because "Haldane Fisher" was taking his own (anti-ID) side in the dispute. Quite simply, it appears that FeloniousMonk smelled an opportunity to use Haldane Fisher as a convenient fire-and-forget missile of personal harassment against me and a certain WP bio subject, cooked up a lame rationalization, and loosed the hound, which then proceeded to continue to do exactly what everyone, including FeloniousMonk, expected it to do, namely, commit unbridled aggression. I'd find it extremely disappointing were this likelihood to be ignored in favor of a transparent rationalization like "But poor attack account Haldane Fisher's precious right to be warned was violated! (Who cares about the people he was savaging?)". It's really very simple: if FeloniousMonk can't exercise his authority fairly and symmetrically, even in cases where he is personally psychologically involved, then he shouldn't be a sysop. Letting him continue to abuse his authority is not fair to the rest of Wikipedia. Asmodeus 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It is entirely appropriate that Felonious Monk should be desysopped for serially abusing his administrator status. His unblocking of Hal(dane) Fisher was just one example of his gaming the system. He has twice brought blocks against me for bogus 3RR "violations" during this arbitration. This represented a clear conflict of interest as it intefered with my ability to participate in the arbitration proceedings, much of which has to do with complaints against him. He then used these bogus blocks to call for a partial ban of my account. This is outrageous behavior for an admin. -- DrL 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Um, among the many problems with the above- anyone can report 3RR and since uninvolved admins agreed with FM that you had gone over 3RR it is very hard to see them as "bogus" reports. JoshuaZ 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I expect that the fact that FM is an administrator gives undue weight to his reports. Naturally, administrators support the actions of each other (and if their behaviors all followed the rules, and did not seek to game the sytem, that would not necessarily be a bad thing). -- DrL 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

So you think that admins don't check the difs when they see reports from other admins? Furthermore, the implication of this notion is dangerous in the extreme. Simply being a well-respected editor makes what an editor does possibly dessyopable? It is ridiculous to even consider desysoping someone for actions that a) didn't involve the admin tools and b) were backed up by uninvolved admins. There is exactly one questionable use of admin tools here and that was the unblock. The consensus seems to be that that unblock did not merit desysopping. So enough. JoshuaZ 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Felonious Monk's serial abuse of administrator status and tools is detrimental to Wikipedia. His actions, as I and others have outlined, are serious enough to warrant discussion and probable sanction. As this extends beyond his support of anti-ID socks, I should probably elaborate in a new proposal. -- DrL 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I don't see how a case has been made for this. This action was a lot less controversial than Fred's block of deeceevoice a year ago for "discourtesy" (discourtesy to Fred, mind you). Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Guettarda 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If the kettle is black, which may not be true in this case, then WP:SPADE. Fred Bauder 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow. I assume you feel that FM is so involved in opposing Intelligent Design topics that he should not have taken admin action regarding pro-ID editors and articles. If so, I would be more comfortable with additional findings of fact along this line, showing other lapses in administrative judgement in re: Intelligent Design. If this is the only major lapse, how about a temporary desysopping or some form of admin probation? Thatcher131 16:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Um, what? It is possible that FM should have discussed the unblock with Cowman before making it but failure to discuss hardly constitutes a desyssopable offense. JoshuaZ 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

At the request of User:Asmodeus and User:DrL, on November 19 User:Cowman109 indefinately blocked User:Haldane Fisher without issuing a prior warning: [93] [94] [95] Why? Because Haldane Fisher repeated the same point raised by User:Hillman, ScienceApologist and many others that Asmodeus and DrL are serially violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI to conduct a pov campaign of self-promotion. Cowman109's block of Haldane Fisher was done without warning and was unilateral, without any appropriate community discussion or input as far as I could tell: [96] My unblocking of Haldane Fisher was meant to remedy what in my view was an painfully obvious wrongful block and abuse of admin tools. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, there was no warning or discussion. Fred Bauder 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems to me that this proposal is just a bit over the top for the actions taken. It's also interesting that a community that insists on AGFing everything under the sun can't even assume neutral faith in this issue. Could FM have discussed the unblock? Of course. But since Cowman did not post to AN/I it would seem that Cowman was not truly amenable to conversation on the topic. Jim62sch 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, this is simply an over the top remedy (and not even possible since neither he nor I were named parties to this arbcom case). I should have left a note somewhere I guess, but at the time I figured that the block was obvious by the user's harassment and actions and that there would be no controversy about it. I still remain unconvinced that Haldane Fisher is anything but a disruptive user (just look at his edits after his unblocking, riddled with more disruption and personal attacks), so that should be discussed instead. I really have no qualms about people undoing my actions - I encourage it if someone thinks I'm out of line. Cowman109^Talk 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Desysopping for one unblock (which seems to be all that is alleged) would require truly extraordinary circumstances not alleged to be present here, and as noted, Felonious Monk isn't even a party to the case. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agree entirely. One unblock does not constitute wheelwarring. And as for DrL's allegations of serial misuse of admin status, how does reporting someone for 3RR constitute misuse of admin status? FeloniousMonk's name doesn't even appear on DrL's block log. AnnH ♫ 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Apparently I am a party now: [97] If my unblocking of Haldane Fisher warrants being listed as a party to this proceeding then Cowman109's demonstrably improper blocking of him that prompted my taking action certainly warrants it as well. FeloniousMonk 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there precedent for an administrator being desysopped for unblocking? -- ScienceApologist 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Here are some specific examples concerning FeloniousMonk for consideration:

Accusing me of being a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher" [98] [99] but without presenting any evidence, even after a personal request, [100], and requesting it during a recent ArbCom, [101]. Allegations without foundation amount to a personal attack.
While trying to discuss NPOV policy, FeloniousMonk unilaterally and without warning, removed my query from the Talk:NPOV page, to my talk page, preventing other editors from commenting, [102]. Discussion is fundamental to Wikipedia, and removing another editor's posts from talk pages is bad etiquette.
A heavy-handed approach to Administration, making a number of unsubstantiated claims which have subsequently been found to be incorrect, or inappropriate. -- Iantresman 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher banned

6) Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Serial nastiness from a single-purpose account. -- DrL 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:STALK. This recent edit is particularly disturbing. -- DrL 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I see no reason for this. It might make sense to strongly caution him regarding his editing and/or restrict his editing on certain topics but I see no reason for an indefinite ban. JoshuaZ 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are put on probation

6b) Haldane Fisher may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing or POV pushing on Langan related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to the above. JoshuaZ 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Given this edit, wherein Fisher identifies DrL's alleged place of employment on a completely unrelated page for no obvious reason, it is clear this is a single purpose harassment account. Can you find a single edit in his history that is not either an attempt to out DrL and Asmodeus or revert one of them? This behavior would absolutely not be tolerated if it were directed at someone who is generally liked and respected, like Simon Pulsifer or William Connolley, and it should not be tolerated when it is directed at someone who is not a well respected Wikipedian. Thatcher131 00:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, after that and recent edits I agree with you. JoshuaZ 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ScienceApologist counseled

1) ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with inexperienced users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Many users err in their initial efforts, but eventually become valued contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Any evidence that I was impatient or undiplomatic with regards to the subject of this arbitration? -- ScienceApologist 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

[103] Fred Bauder 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See Asmodeus' earliest contribs - this is not an inexperienced user, and was not at the time of that comment (9 Nov) either. I think by 9 Nov Asmodeus had pretty much revealed who he was and why he was here. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but I asked specifically for guidance with respect to this matter at AN/I and at WP:AUTO and got no indications that I was being undiplomatic. I don't think that proposing the question of whether someone is a particular rl individual is undiplomacy when COI and AUTO are on the line. -- ScienceApologist 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Cowman109 is cautioned

1) Cowman109 is cautioned to follow procedures laid out at WP:BLOCK when blocking, particularly to seek public input from the community or other administrators when considering controversial blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I, for one, thank Cowman109 for alertly doing his job. He had every reason to block the Fisher account, and any failure to do so would have put the rights of an obvious single-purpose attack account ahead of my rights and the rights of a Wikipedia bio subject ( Christopher Michael Langan). That obviously would have been a mistake. Furthermore, what I suspect might otherwise have happened goes something like this: (1) Cowman109 warns Fisher; (2) FeloniousMonk sees the warning on Fisher's talk page; (3) FeloniousMonk, eager for Fisher to continue his attacks on FeloniousMonk's opponents, steps in as Fisher's administrative advocate; (4) Cowman109, hesitant to gainsay another administrator, takes the matter under advisement; (5) Fisher, emboldened by his victory and brimming with gratitude for the protection received from FeloniousMonk, redoubles his attacks. Indeed, except for steps 1 and 2, this is precisely what we've seen! Thanks to Cowman109's fast action, at least an obvious troll was temporarily put out of action. Asmodeus 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposed. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I considered this an obvious block, not a controversial one, so I don't think this applies. It's more of a judgement call failure on my part for not suspecting that the block would be controversial. And WP:BLOCK does specifically say not to unblock without seeking clarification or attempting to discuss the matter, but I understand your actions of course as I did not leave any note on the user's talk page. Cowman109^Talk 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If we are talking about one block, it wouldn't seem to require ArbCom action or even a caution, as a dispute over a single block would never been an arbitration case if the block hadn't happened to come up in the context of a broader dispute. A pattern of course would be different but I don't think that's alleged here. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Newyorkbrak here. This entire matter of both the block and the unblock is being brought way out of proportion. JoshuaZ 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree about the block; there was a case for that. But as far as the unblock is concerned...there, we have a clear conflict of interest and attendant abuse of administrative authority. That is, we have an administrator acting to the undeserved advantage of someone on his own side of the fence, to the detriment of someone on the other side of the fence (as well as a Wikipedia bio subject whom Wikipedia is morally obligated to protect from violations of WP:LIVING). That's what makes the unblock far worse than the block which preceded it. Such behavior is totally unacceptable, especially coming from an administrator who spends so much of his time hypocritically attacking others over alleged conflicts of interest. Asmodeus 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

ScienceApologist banned from editing Langan-related articles

1) ScienceApologist is permanently banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all other articles featuring Langan and/or his work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Asmodeus 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is necessitated by any or all of the following facts: (1) ScienceApologist has repeatedly added misleading unverified statements to Christopher Michael Langan, thus violating WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR; (2) During the CTMU AfD/DR, ScienceApologist improperly introduced unverified content/validity judgments as editorial criteria while denying clear evidence of notability; (3) ScienceApologist and others have subjected those attempting to make constructive NPOV edits on Langan-related articles to editorial harassment (pointed reversion of valid edits, etc.); (4) In editing Christopher Michael Langan, ScienceApologist has persistently but falsely conflated Langan's work with ID (in the creationist sense, and thus with "pseudoscience") when Langan is in fact a verifiable supporter of evolution, thus wrongly subjecting him and his ideas to opprobrium and political censure in violation of WP:LIVING; (5) ScienceApologist and others have misrepresented Langan's work as "pseudoscience" when it is explicitly philosophical in nature, thus violating WP:V and other core policies. Asmodeus 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Agree. This seems to be amply justified by the above. -- DrL 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

(1)Which statements would those be, specifically? (2)What precedent is there for banning someone based on comments made in a AfD discussion? (3) are you making cabalistic accusations? (4)Can you name a specific edit where I either persistently (more than once) while falsely conflated any work of Langan's with ID? (5)Are you honestly saying you cannot see the pseudoscientific nature of CTMU arguments? -- ScienceApologist 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Those would be statements enumerated and/or referenced on the evidence page, right where they belong. (2) The ArbCom has the power to set necessary precedents where such precedents are currently lacking. (3) This is clearly implied by the fact that 80% of WikiProject ID, an organized cabal united by mutual anti-ID solidarity, has rallied to your defense in philosophically committed anti-ID solidarity with you. (4) Again, see the evidence page. (5) Yes, I am. In addition, what I'm saying is that you, ScienceApologist, appear to have literally no idea what pseudoscience is, or what distinguishes it from science, logic, philosophy (e.g. metaphysical cosmology), and other kinds of reasoning, as I explained in the Pseudoscience RfAr in which you were recently involved. Asmodeus 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

(1) The statements on the evidence page do not show any evidence of what you insinuate. (2) ArbCom also considers previous precedents. When precedents lack, there is often a reason. (3) Extremely circumstantial evidence. I might point out that you and your wife and your perennial Tim Smith fan rallied to your defense too. (4) Again, nothing established on the evidence page in the manner in which you outline. (5)I think this clearly establishes that you have a conflict of interest and should yourself be banned from editting the pages related to the ideas you invented. -- ScienceApologist 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

(1) Yes, they do. Most of your eight cited edits to the article were clearly designed to make Langan look like an active ID advocate. You even fabricated an assertion to the effect that famous ID advocate Jonathan Wells was the "founder" of ISCID and used that false pretext to insert his name into the article when he actually has no special connection to the subject. (2) Then prove there's a valid reason in this case. (3) Yes, but you started out on the offense, not the defense. Those "defending" you are merely shielding your offensive behavior. (4) As explained, everything is indeed clearly established on the evidence page (not that anyone really seems to have looked too closely at it yet). (5) Despite what you may believe, and no matter who a given editor may happen to be, it is not a violation of WP:COI to correct unverified POV-driven misinformation by people like you. Asmodeus 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Lagan is not a verifiable supporter of evolution. It may be verifiable that he says he believes in evolution, but he attached his name to a book attacking evolution and is a fellow of a society that attacks evolution. NPOV does not mean that we accept the bio subject's word blindly.-- Prosfilaes 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Langan is indeed a well-verified supporter of evolution. See my response to this Inquiry (and please learn to spell Langan's name correctly). Asmodeus 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

And I commented there already on that source being less than conclusive. JoshuaZ 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

With any luck I'll never see the name again after this RfA, so remembering its spelling is not high on my list. Whatever your opinion on Langan as a support of evolution is, the quote at the end of that link is hardly so clear and notorious that anyone writing the contrary opinion on the page should be permanently banned for it.-- Prosfilaes 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

But you've repeatedly misspelled it exactly the same way, which implies that you're capable of remembering its misspelling. Therefore, your clear resentment of Mr. Langan notwithstanding, you should be capable of spelling it correctly (provided you've suffered no debilitating injury to the index digit on your right hand, which might prevent you from reaching the N key). It now becomes a matter of WP:CIV. Asmodeus 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Asmodeus, when peope mispelll something they frequently mispell it the same way many times. Mispelling his name is not a civ matter (also, I can't think why you would think mispelling his name was a civility matter unless you were Langan and since you claim not to be presumably there isn't any civility issue). JoshuaZ 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If at one time Prosfilaes was spelling the name correctly, but then began to misspell it exactly the same way that ScienceApologist used to misspell it in conjunction with various unkind remarks about Mr. Langan, just when a third party happened to make note of the latter coincidence, then there would seem to be an element of intentionality involved. Due to this apparent element of intentionality, Prosfilaes' behavior satisfies any reasonable definition of incivility (toward Mr. Langan, whom Prosfilaes holds to be me). If you disagree, then you disagree. But in keeping with WP:SPADE, I still reserve the right to name Prosfilaes' behavior for what it obviously is. I hope you have a very nice day. Asmodeus 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That's some of the worst reasoning I've ever seen here at Wikipedia. Misspelling is misspelling, and this is a wiki for godsakes! If you want to fix a spelling, fix a spellin. Asmodeus is wasting everyone's time, content to simply invent castles in the clouds in which he takes refuge. -- ScienceApologist 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I merely made a polite request that somebody else fix his/her own misspellings in his/her own edits. You people are the ones who took exception to that request, thus turning a molehill into a mountain. Consider the matter laid to rest - for all I care, you can misspell anything you want to, uncivilly or otherwise. Be my guest. Asmodeus 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk banned from editing Langan-related articles

1) FeloniousMonk is permanently banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all other articles featuring Langan and/or his work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Asmodeus 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is necessitated by any or all of the following facts: (1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly added misleading unverified statements to Christopher Michael Langan, thus violating WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR; (2) FeloniousMonk and others have subjected those attempting to make constructive NPOV edits to editorial harassment (pointed reversion of valid edits, etc.); (3) FeloniousMonk has committed abuses of administrative authority with respect to Christopher Michael Langan and those editing it outside his own POV; (4) In editing Christopher Michael Langan, FeloniousMonk has persistently but falsely conflated Langan's work with ID in the creationist sense (and thus with "pseudoscience") when Langan is in fact a verifiable supporter of evolution, thus wrongly exposing him and his ideas to opprobrium and political censure in violation of WP:LIVING. Asmodeus 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Agree. The above passage outlines serial violations that need to be brought under control. -- DrL 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

ScienceApologist placed on civility parole

1) ScienceApologist is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. If unchecked, violations of this type will be the downfall of Wikipedia. -- DrL 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Any precedents for this? Any evidence relevant to this case of unchecked incivility? -- ScienceApologist 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tim Smith 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole

1) FeloniousMonk is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. This is particularly serious in the case of administrators, especially when their administrative actions and general editing behaviors have been repeatedly called into question. -- DrL 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: