Note that AI has not only attempted to include disparaging material in the article itself, there is also AI's user subpage User:AI/Touretzky quotes with potentially libelous "quotes" attributed to David S. Touretzky. The quotes were rejected from the article namespace, and I find their continued existence in user space highly problematic. -- MarkSweep 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep's involvement in the David Touretzky article is problematic. His only involvement apparently was to "police" my contribution. He did not significantly contribute until after I questioned his contribution. -- AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I think AI has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a curious letter-of-the-law fashion (mixed with his own interpretation). We should therefore make sure that the proposed remedy and enforcement are unambiguously clear. At the moment, it's not fully clear to me (but that could just be me) whether AI would be allowed to do the following:
Note that I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be allowed to do these things, just asking that they be addressed. Also, I don't want this to turn into open season for AI-baiting. -- MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep's POV regarding personal attacks is not supported by consensus at WP_talk:NPA (or at any of the related policy/guideline discussion pages). As a new admin, he should be restricted from mediating any disputes involving personal attacks/comments. Furthermore, MarkSweep should be restricted from scrutinizing any user pages or talk pages especially when it comes to what he views as "defamatory" statements. -- AI 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a very blunt instrument. Certainly an effective one, but I'm not sure it's the best remedy regarding the core goal of writing an encyclopedia. AI brings special expertise to the table, which would be welcome IF (big if) he could somehow learn to respect the opinions of other editors. Other users have shown great patience with him, trying to educate him on issues of NPOV, reliable sources, etc. AI needs to learn to take those people seriously, and not threaten, attack, manipulate, censor them, filibuster, etc. The whole thing about valuing the letter of policy more highly than the consensus opinions of his fellow editors has to stop. Wikipedia works by building consensus, not by outmaneuvering one's perceived opponents. If AI is prohibited from editing certain articles, but the above traits of his behavior are not addressed, it is possible that he may continue along the same lines on a different set of articles, or continue some of his tactics for taking over and directing the flow of conversations on CoS article talk pages (I'm assuming the proposed remedy would allow him to post comments on talk pages). -- MarkSweep 06:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think MarkSweep has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a police-others fashion (probably hired by David Touretzky or other "notable" critic of Scientology). You should therefore make sure that the proposed remedies and enforcement also address MarkSweep. At the moment, it's clear to me that MarkSweep should be restricted from doing any of following:
Note that I am saying he shouldn't be allowed to do these things, and that they be addressed. -- AI 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there are a number of other problems, and I've outlined some on the evidence page. If you look at the recent history of David S. Touretzky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you'll see what's been going on. I don't know if it's Ok for the ArbCom to consider the whole situation beyond the specific complaint, or if it's Ok to amend the complaint at this point. As I see it, AI has a variety of tactics that he's employed so far. The proposed remedy would take away one of those, but the fundamental problem is that AI does not respect the collective opinions of other editors and will use any policy, guideline, reference to common practice, jargon, etc. to force his will (with no support and against the objections of others). That is a fundamental issue and is something that could be addressed without going beyond the scope of the original complaint. -- MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at
this diff it appears that AI expects that the Arbitrators will address the dispute over
David S. Touretzky, and I agree with him that they should. The most recent issue is that AI keeps adding biased content to the article, despite the fact that the proposed additions were discussed and rejected on the talk page and that his attempts to add them have met with objections from at least three four different editors, with nobody voicing any support. --
MarkSweep
19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep also adds biased content to articles, look at his most recent "contribution" to Tom Cruise. MarkSweeps view on contribution of bias is hypocritical. Arbitrators should address him in addition to User:AI if they are going to take up this issue at all. -- AI 22:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Viewed in the most general terms, what Scientology does is offer psychotherapy to its practitioners, in much the same way that Christian Science offers physical healing. By being a religion, they escape from and are able to operate free of the restrictions that may be imposed by the state. Anyone who has been around folks who need psychotherapy knows that things can go horribly wrong for a variety of reasons. What Touretzky does is exploit that vulnerability. His pointing to specific examples would support much more general conclusions than are justified by viewing isolated examples. I don't mean by this to say that the techniques used by Scientology are safe or effective or that a full disclosure is made to recruits. Fred Bauder 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This request for arbitration originated as a result of disputes between User:AI and several other regular contributors who constantly engaged in personal attacks. User:MarkSweep entered the scene and attempted to "mediate" by targetting User:AI with prejudice and generalization and without fully understanding all the facts regarding the involved users and the articles in question. This is an arbitration between User:MarkSweep and and User:AI, not an arbitration against User:AI. The arbitrators must also look at User:MarkSweep's actions instead of allowing the RfArb to become a "weapon" employed by MarkSweep against User:AI. -- AI 13:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
What would you suggest as a finding of fact (would be helpful if you accompanied your suggestions with cites of evidence) and what would you suggest as remedies? Fred Bauder 00:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
This problem with the little cabals is a threat to NPOV in Wikipedia. -- AI 03:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Mark Sweep apparently knows very little about the "disputes" between David Touretzky and the Church of Scientology. If he did he would understand David Touretzky has many duped supporters, some of which have involved themselves in Wikipedia. Rather than attempt to mediate the dispute objectively and impartially, MarkSweep is intentionally avoiding more important issues; he simply overlooks the fact that some biased and prejudiced users have subjected Iser:AI to constant personal attacks, reverted contributions without explanation or just reason, and unfairly attacked User:AI's sources as questionable, yet at the same time some of those users use even more questionable sources in their contributions to the Scientology related articles. Instead, MarkSweep seeks arbitration and has constantly attempted to influence the process and has targetted User:AI's application of policies/guidlines concerning refactoring/reverts. My contribution style of presenting critical information and attributing that information is shared with many contributors in other controversial articles. The "underlying problem" here is discrimination against Scientology; prejudiced users finding anything to pin on User:AI instead of objectively looking at the actual disputes of the articles. The "underlying problem" is an unbalanced sense of consensus due to sytemic bias of prejudice. |
Let's be clear here: this request is about your disruptive behavior only, nothing else. We're not talking about the contents of articles here, but about the fact that you're not working toward consensus regarding the contents of articles. The community is indeed biased against disruptive editors. -- MarkSweep 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You're not being "clear." See my comments below. Your behavior has been very disruptive to me and I have been called highly active contributor by others. All one has to do is look at the time I have spend in dealing with this arbitration which will be documented and used as evidence against you. I have no intention of allowing you to claim this arbitration is "nothing else" You're claim that I am a disruptive editor is further proof of your bias as I have not been mostly a disruptive editor, I am mostly an highly active contributor. -- AI 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore this is a request for arbitration, the arbitrators have to consider my arguments also. So far they haven't, so my attitude towards Wikipedia in general is justified. I disagree with the way arbitrators are remaining biased and have not responded to my request for an arbitrator to assist me with my side. There is no one above these arbitrators correcting their silly injustics. Therefore I see not reason to respect Wikipedia. And considering all the propaganda and lies contained therein, Wikipedia should be destroyed through means which do not break the law. Wikipedians are too quick to act with their misunderstoods and they ignore timeline which is necessary to understand changes in the various situations. -- AI 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia users should be permitted to comment on content and edits only. At the same time, users should be enjoined from making any type of personal comments. If Wikipedia is going to suffer personal comments then related policies should be clarified to prevent snide remarks disguised as comments about "editing behavior". -- AI 20:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Incivility, which includes, but is no limited to, personal attacks, is already prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia. The problem in this case is that the remarks in question, which you called "personal attacks", are neither personal nor attacks. Removal was unjustified, and repeated removal over the objections of other editors is disruptive, disrespectful, disgraceful, as Jackie Chiles would say. -- MarkSweep 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If MarkSweep really intentends to correct underlying problems, then how come he has
This is proof of his prejudice, discrimination and bias against me as a Scientologist.-- AI 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not about who you say you are, but about your actions on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above:
I am indeed prejudiced against disruptive editors, but this has nothing to do with who they are or claim to be. -- MarkSweep 23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinions.
And as a reminder, you're calling me "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack. And the use of the term in this arbitration is a personal attack on the part of User:Fred Bauder on August 3, 2005 who entered it into the proposals. [8] -- AI 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the definition of idiosyncratic from Websters -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
1 a : a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality b : individual hypersensitiveness (as to a drug or food) 2 : characteristic peculiarity (as of temperament); broadly : ECCENTRICITY
Using "idiosyncratic" to describe a persons viewpoint implies eccentricity. Did you know this? Or have you even ever word-cleared idiosyncratic? -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This basis of this entire dispute is based on disagreements with some who share David Touretzky's point of view, who does not believe in "word-clearing" by the way. :) -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, MarkSweep, who told you I was a disruptive editor? I have never been the subject of any RfC. -- AI 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I must admit I am about to prohibit myself from further contribution to Wikipedia considering the treatment I have been getting from even the "arbitrators." -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It didn't take much effort to make this decision to quit. Bye. --
AI
02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What happens now? I hope the case won't just be closed without any actions or findings. While I don't want to waste the ArbCom's time, it appears that a decision is within reach. Obviously, remedies won't be needed for the time being, but perhaps the findings of fact could be completed, so that there is a record for the future. -- MarkSweep 01:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify: AI ( talk · contribs) is back, and has also edited semi-anonymously from 168.215.232.49 ( talk · contribs). In light of AI's swift return, it may be best to allow this case to run its normal course. -- MarkSweep 06:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
And yes I mean it. -- AI 03:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
In the mean time I am giving Wikipedia a chance to change it flaws by offering discussion on some policy talk pages. Wikipedia is not cool, it's only cool to people who aren't aware of the systemic bias and those who are part of the systemic bias. -- AI 03:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that:
However, I am concerned that this statement makes a sweeping generalisation about all the editors AI has come into contact with. The cited evidence accompanying this finding of fact does not prove that either MarkSweep or NicholasTurnbull have in fact responded disrespectfully to AI. This could be a problem should the ArbCom proceed to propose remedies which prevent these parties becoming involved in disputes, which, without support, I would deem unfair.
I don't think any proposed decision affects anyone other than AI or relies heavily on this finding. If you look at the workshop page you will see several personal attacks and nasty remarks. No search has been made for extensive evidence of personal attacks. I am not that comfortable with the proposal to ban AI from Scientology articles, but quite confident that "refactoring" pages needs to stop. Fred Bauder 22:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I see that AI ( talk · contribs) is back to editing articles related to Scientology. Are the proposed remedies in effect? - Willmcw 04:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia Vicious Cycle -- AI 03:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. AI has indicated there that he is planning on disrupting Wikipedia sometime in the future. And why has there been no final decision in this case? Zoe 05:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
This selection of edits, all by AI, should make the point. He calls the unpaid contributors "slaves" and says, and I QUOTE: "...Wikipedia is also used for propaganda and Jimbo Wale's friends support the propaganda or refuse to address the issue when it deals with subjects they oppose. Wikipedia is inherently hypocritical and biased and you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes." (My emphasis) - 206.114.20.121 (sdl.billheard.com) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)
I don't think we can consider him a useful contributor with an attitude like that. 206.114.20.121 19:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)
There is no need to quote me to prove this. All you need is ask. Yes I intend to destroy Wikipedia because Wikipedia shows no effective effort to correct it's problems and Wikipedia's problems broadly affect almost every sector of society. I have stated my concerns weeks ago, and no one in Wikipedia seems to care. I tried contacting the AMA (silly name) and got no response. Wikipedia is run and ruled by critics of Scientology. Another reason I will help to destroy Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia can change my decision, but it will take an honest effort of the Wikipedia slaves, admins, administrators and of course Jimbo Wales himself. Now stop bothering me with this frivolous RfA. I have no respect for your organization or it's efforts in Justice. -- AI 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that 168.215.232.22 is AI? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
If it helps to understand, The ip's used by AI are also shared by a few other Wikipedia contributors who have been recruited by AI (or perhaps they are just sock puppets?). Note: making the wrong move will only cause more people to be upset with Wikipedia. In fact my vision of destroying Wikipedia is not my own, I hardly have to do anything but watch it fall. So here's my new motto: "HELP PUSH WIKIPEDIA OVER!!!" :) -- AI 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I, AI, have turned against Wikipedia because of Wikipedia's apparently inherent incompetence in fairly dealing with systemic bias and other major issues. My evaluation was confirmed after a little research into this:
At first I tried to help by pushing for policy development and I requested assistance on a few issues. Within the Wikipedia community, there seems to be more focus on criticizing others while ignoring the problems at home. Why should a big mess made by other be cleaned up by me (who is unpaid) while Wikipedia collects donations. -- AI 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
To give Wikipedia a chance to adjust my attitude, I have put an AfD for Xenu. The article is composed from a source which cannot be reliable verified. Wikipedia rules on attribution have not been enforced upon the Xenu article. Keeping the article even though it is unverifiable is one prime example of why I think Wikipedia is biased. Arnie Lerma is the one who first copied the document to the internet and the church sued him and won its case, yet he still tries to lie and has his dupe Maureen D reverting my contributions of legal quotes which demonstrate that he lost and was ordered to pay the church fees for the violation. The church even asked for the minimum requirement to make things easier for Lerma. Interestingly, MarkSweep isn't complaining about Maureen D one bit. Instead he viciously has been defending David Touretzky and Keith Henson by attacking me personally with his rhetoric and this arbitration and his own subtle personal attacks and by his constant claims that my edits are irrelevant or not attributed to a reliable source. And even though I provide reliable sources, Mark, Maureen and the others further violate WP:NPOV and find another way to revert my contribution by claiming consensus does not support addition. Let me remind you that WP:NPOV states that consensus does not trump NPOV and the NPOV required even the significant-minority POV to be fairly represented. For Wikipedia's own sake (credibility has been at stake for some time) I suggest the arbitrators carefully consider what I am presenting, choose wisely and vote on the AfD. -- AI 05:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
AI's statement of intent to go against Wikipedia using "legal means" has been interpreted in one particular way while other interpretations are available. I think "legal means" should be contrasted with "illegal means", and not necessarily taken to mean filing suit in a court of law. For example, AI's recent attempts at trolling (see e.g. the contributions of 24.94.88.236 ( talk · contribs) and compare [12] and [13] with [14]) may not violate any criminal laws (hence could be considered a legal means), but this is clearly against Wikipedia's own policies and probably also against the Acceptable Use Policy of AI's ISP. I would hate to see AI get banned over a potential misunderstanding of a single phrase. However, I also think that AI's presence on Wikipedia is no longer tolerable. I was initially hopeful that AI would change the problematic behavior that this complaint was originally about. Instead, AI has tried to use this as a forum for airing his unrelated grudges. AI's recent statements and activities speak for themselves and should be sufficient grounds for a ban. -- MarkSweep ✍ 14:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that AI has not only attempted to include disparaging material in the article itself, there is also AI's user subpage User:AI/Touretzky quotes with potentially libelous "quotes" attributed to David S. Touretzky. The quotes were rejected from the article namespace, and I find their continued existence in user space highly problematic. -- MarkSweep 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep's involvement in the David Touretzky article is problematic. His only involvement apparently was to "police" my contribution. He did not significantly contribute until after I questioned his contribution. -- AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I think AI has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a curious letter-of-the-law fashion (mixed with his own interpretation). We should therefore make sure that the proposed remedy and enforcement are unambiguously clear. At the moment, it's not fully clear to me (but that could just be me) whether AI would be allowed to do the following:
Note that I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be allowed to do these things, just asking that they be addressed. Also, I don't want this to turn into open season for AI-baiting. -- MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep's POV regarding personal attacks is not supported by consensus at WP_talk:NPA (or at any of the related policy/guideline discussion pages). As a new admin, he should be restricted from mediating any disputes involving personal attacks/comments. Furthermore, MarkSweep should be restricted from scrutinizing any user pages or talk pages especially when it comes to what he views as "defamatory" statements. -- AI 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a very blunt instrument. Certainly an effective one, but I'm not sure it's the best remedy regarding the core goal of writing an encyclopedia. AI brings special expertise to the table, which would be welcome IF (big if) he could somehow learn to respect the opinions of other editors. Other users have shown great patience with him, trying to educate him on issues of NPOV, reliable sources, etc. AI needs to learn to take those people seriously, and not threaten, attack, manipulate, censor them, filibuster, etc. The whole thing about valuing the letter of policy more highly than the consensus opinions of his fellow editors has to stop. Wikipedia works by building consensus, not by outmaneuvering one's perceived opponents. If AI is prohibited from editing certain articles, but the above traits of his behavior are not addressed, it is possible that he may continue along the same lines on a different set of articles, or continue some of his tactics for taking over and directing the flow of conversations on CoS article talk pages (I'm assuming the proposed remedy would allow him to post comments on talk pages). -- MarkSweep 06:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think MarkSweep has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a police-others fashion (probably hired by David Touretzky or other "notable" critic of Scientology). You should therefore make sure that the proposed remedies and enforcement also address MarkSweep. At the moment, it's clear to me that MarkSweep should be restricted from doing any of following:
Note that I am saying he shouldn't be allowed to do these things, and that they be addressed. -- AI 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there are a number of other problems, and I've outlined some on the evidence page. If you look at the recent history of David S. Touretzky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you'll see what's been going on. I don't know if it's Ok for the ArbCom to consider the whole situation beyond the specific complaint, or if it's Ok to amend the complaint at this point. As I see it, AI has a variety of tactics that he's employed so far. The proposed remedy would take away one of those, but the fundamental problem is that AI does not respect the collective opinions of other editors and will use any policy, guideline, reference to common practice, jargon, etc. to force his will (with no support and against the objections of others). That is a fundamental issue and is something that could be addressed without going beyond the scope of the original complaint. -- MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at
this diff it appears that AI expects that the Arbitrators will address the dispute over
David S. Touretzky, and I agree with him that they should. The most recent issue is that AI keeps adding biased content to the article, despite the fact that the proposed additions were discussed and rejected on the talk page and that his attempts to add them have met with objections from at least three four different editors, with nobody voicing any support. --
MarkSweep
19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep also adds biased content to articles, look at his most recent "contribution" to Tom Cruise. MarkSweeps view on contribution of bias is hypocritical. Arbitrators should address him in addition to User:AI if they are going to take up this issue at all. -- AI 22:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Viewed in the most general terms, what Scientology does is offer psychotherapy to its practitioners, in much the same way that Christian Science offers physical healing. By being a religion, they escape from and are able to operate free of the restrictions that may be imposed by the state. Anyone who has been around folks who need psychotherapy knows that things can go horribly wrong for a variety of reasons. What Touretzky does is exploit that vulnerability. His pointing to specific examples would support much more general conclusions than are justified by viewing isolated examples. I don't mean by this to say that the techniques used by Scientology are safe or effective or that a full disclosure is made to recruits. Fred Bauder 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This request for arbitration originated as a result of disputes between User:AI and several other regular contributors who constantly engaged in personal attacks. User:MarkSweep entered the scene and attempted to "mediate" by targetting User:AI with prejudice and generalization and without fully understanding all the facts regarding the involved users and the articles in question. This is an arbitration between User:MarkSweep and and User:AI, not an arbitration against User:AI. The arbitrators must also look at User:MarkSweep's actions instead of allowing the RfArb to become a "weapon" employed by MarkSweep against User:AI. -- AI 13:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
What would you suggest as a finding of fact (would be helpful if you accompanied your suggestions with cites of evidence) and what would you suggest as remedies? Fred Bauder 00:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
This problem with the little cabals is a threat to NPOV in Wikipedia. -- AI 03:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Mark Sweep apparently knows very little about the "disputes" between David Touretzky and the Church of Scientology. If he did he would understand David Touretzky has many duped supporters, some of which have involved themselves in Wikipedia. Rather than attempt to mediate the dispute objectively and impartially, MarkSweep is intentionally avoiding more important issues; he simply overlooks the fact that some biased and prejudiced users have subjected Iser:AI to constant personal attacks, reverted contributions without explanation or just reason, and unfairly attacked User:AI's sources as questionable, yet at the same time some of those users use even more questionable sources in their contributions to the Scientology related articles. Instead, MarkSweep seeks arbitration and has constantly attempted to influence the process and has targetted User:AI's application of policies/guidlines concerning refactoring/reverts. My contribution style of presenting critical information and attributing that information is shared with many contributors in other controversial articles. The "underlying problem" here is discrimination against Scientology; prejudiced users finding anything to pin on User:AI instead of objectively looking at the actual disputes of the articles. The "underlying problem" is an unbalanced sense of consensus due to sytemic bias of prejudice. |
Let's be clear here: this request is about your disruptive behavior only, nothing else. We're not talking about the contents of articles here, but about the fact that you're not working toward consensus regarding the contents of articles. The community is indeed biased against disruptive editors. -- MarkSweep 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You're not being "clear." See my comments below. Your behavior has been very disruptive to me and I have been called highly active contributor by others. All one has to do is look at the time I have spend in dealing with this arbitration which will be documented and used as evidence against you. I have no intention of allowing you to claim this arbitration is "nothing else" You're claim that I am a disruptive editor is further proof of your bias as I have not been mostly a disruptive editor, I am mostly an highly active contributor. -- AI 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore this is a request for arbitration, the arbitrators have to consider my arguments also. So far they haven't, so my attitude towards Wikipedia in general is justified. I disagree with the way arbitrators are remaining biased and have not responded to my request for an arbitrator to assist me with my side. There is no one above these arbitrators correcting their silly injustics. Therefore I see not reason to respect Wikipedia. And considering all the propaganda and lies contained therein, Wikipedia should be destroyed through means which do not break the law. Wikipedians are too quick to act with their misunderstoods and they ignore timeline which is necessary to understand changes in the various situations. -- AI 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia users should be permitted to comment on content and edits only. At the same time, users should be enjoined from making any type of personal comments. If Wikipedia is going to suffer personal comments then related policies should be clarified to prevent snide remarks disguised as comments about "editing behavior". -- AI 20:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Incivility, which includes, but is no limited to, personal attacks, is already prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia. The problem in this case is that the remarks in question, which you called "personal attacks", are neither personal nor attacks. Removal was unjustified, and repeated removal over the objections of other editors is disruptive, disrespectful, disgraceful, as Jackie Chiles would say. -- MarkSweep 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If MarkSweep really intentends to correct underlying problems, then how come he has
This is proof of his prejudice, discrimination and bias against me as a Scientologist.-- AI 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not about who you say you are, but about your actions on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above:
I am indeed prejudiced against disruptive editors, but this has nothing to do with who they are or claim to be. -- MarkSweep 23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinions.
And as a reminder, you're calling me "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack. And the use of the term in this arbitration is a personal attack on the part of User:Fred Bauder on August 3, 2005 who entered it into the proposals. [8] -- AI 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the definition of idiosyncratic from Websters -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
1 a : a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality b : individual hypersensitiveness (as to a drug or food) 2 : characteristic peculiarity (as of temperament); broadly : ECCENTRICITY
Using "idiosyncratic" to describe a persons viewpoint implies eccentricity. Did you know this? Or have you even ever word-cleared idiosyncratic? -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This basis of this entire dispute is based on disagreements with some who share David Touretzky's point of view, who does not believe in "word-clearing" by the way. :) -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, MarkSweep, who told you I was a disruptive editor? I have never been the subject of any RfC. -- AI 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I must admit I am about to prohibit myself from further contribution to Wikipedia considering the treatment I have been getting from even the "arbitrators." -- AI 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It didn't take much effort to make this decision to quit. Bye. --
AI
02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What happens now? I hope the case won't just be closed without any actions or findings. While I don't want to waste the ArbCom's time, it appears that a decision is within reach. Obviously, remedies won't be needed for the time being, but perhaps the findings of fact could be completed, so that there is a record for the future. -- MarkSweep 01:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify: AI ( talk · contribs) is back, and has also edited semi-anonymously from 168.215.232.49 ( talk · contribs). In light of AI's swift return, it may be best to allow this case to run its normal course. -- MarkSweep 06:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
And yes I mean it. -- AI 03:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
In the mean time I am giving Wikipedia a chance to change it flaws by offering discussion on some policy talk pages. Wikipedia is not cool, it's only cool to people who aren't aware of the systemic bias and those who are part of the systemic bias. -- AI 03:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that:
However, I am concerned that this statement makes a sweeping generalisation about all the editors AI has come into contact with. The cited evidence accompanying this finding of fact does not prove that either MarkSweep or NicholasTurnbull have in fact responded disrespectfully to AI. This could be a problem should the ArbCom proceed to propose remedies which prevent these parties becoming involved in disputes, which, without support, I would deem unfair.
I don't think any proposed decision affects anyone other than AI or relies heavily on this finding. If you look at the workshop page you will see several personal attacks and nasty remarks. No search has been made for extensive evidence of personal attacks. I am not that comfortable with the proposal to ban AI from Scientology articles, but quite confident that "refactoring" pages needs to stop. Fred Bauder 22:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I see that AI ( talk · contribs) is back to editing articles related to Scientology. Are the proposed remedies in effect? - Willmcw 04:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia Vicious Cycle -- AI 03:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. AI has indicated there that he is planning on disrupting Wikipedia sometime in the future. And why has there been no final decision in this case? Zoe 05:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
This selection of edits, all by AI, should make the point. He calls the unpaid contributors "slaves" and says, and I QUOTE: "...Wikipedia is also used for propaganda and Jimbo Wale's friends support the propaganda or refuse to address the issue when it deals with subjects they oppose. Wikipedia is inherently hypocritical and biased and you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes." (My emphasis) - 206.114.20.121 (sdl.billheard.com) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)
I don't think we can consider him a useful contributor with an attitude like that. 206.114.20.121 19:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (a known critic of scientology on a.r.s.)
There is no need to quote me to prove this. All you need is ask. Yes I intend to destroy Wikipedia because Wikipedia shows no effective effort to correct it's problems and Wikipedia's problems broadly affect almost every sector of society. I have stated my concerns weeks ago, and no one in Wikipedia seems to care. I tried contacting the AMA (silly name) and got no response. Wikipedia is run and ruled by critics of Scientology. Another reason I will help to destroy Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia can change my decision, but it will take an honest effort of the Wikipedia slaves, admins, administrators and of course Jimbo Wales himself. Now stop bothering me with this frivolous RfA. I have no respect for your organization or it's efforts in Justice. -- AI 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that 168.215.232.22 is AI? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
If it helps to understand, The ip's used by AI are also shared by a few other Wikipedia contributors who have been recruited by AI (or perhaps they are just sock puppets?). Note: making the wrong move will only cause more people to be upset with Wikipedia. In fact my vision of destroying Wikipedia is not my own, I hardly have to do anything but watch it fall. So here's my new motto: "HELP PUSH WIKIPEDIA OVER!!!" :) -- AI 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I, AI, have turned against Wikipedia because of Wikipedia's apparently inherent incompetence in fairly dealing with systemic bias and other major issues. My evaluation was confirmed after a little research into this:
At first I tried to help by pushing for policy development and I requested assistance on a few issues. Within the Wikipedia community, there seems to be more focus on criticizing others while ignoring the problems at home. Why should a big mess made by other be cleaned up by me (who is unpaid) while Wikipedia collects donations. -- AI 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
To give Wikipedia a chance to adjust my attitude, I have put an AfD for Xenu. The article is composed from a source which cannot be reliable verified. Wikipedia rules on attribution have not been enforced upon the Xenu article. Keeping the article even though it is unverifiable is one prime example of why I think Wikipedia is biased. Arnie Lerma is the one who first copied the document to the internet and the church sued him and won its case, yet he still tries to lie and has his dupe Maureen D reverting my contributions of legal quotes which demonstrate that he lost and was ordered to pay the church fees for the violation. The church even asked for the minimum requirement to make things easier for Lerma. Interestingly, MarkSweep isn't complaining about Maureen D one bit. Instead he viciously has been defending David Touretzky and Keith Henson by attacking me personally with his rhetoric and this arbitration and his own subtle personal attacks and by his constant claims that my edits are irrelevant or not attributed to a reliable source. And even though I provide reliable sources, Mark, Maureen and the others further violate WP:NPOV and find another way to revert my contribution by claiming consensus does not support addition. Let me remind you that WP:NPOV states that consensus does not trump NPOV and the NPOV required even the significant-minority POV to be fairly represented. For Wikipedia's own sake (credibility has been at stake for some time) I suggest the arbitrators carefully consider what I am presenting, choose wisely and vote on the AfD. -- AI 05:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
AI's statement of intent to go against Wikipedia using "legal means" has been interpreted in one particular way while other interpretations are available. I think "legal means" should be contrasted with "illegal means", and not necessarily taken to mean filing suit in a court of law. For example, AI's recent attempts at trolling (see e.g. the contributions of 24.94.88.236 ( talk · contribs) and compare [12] and [13] with [14]) may not violate any criminal laws (hence could be considered a legal means), but this is clearly against Wikipedia's own policies and probably also against the Acceptable Use Policy of AI's ISP. I would hate to see AI get banned over a potential misunderstanding of a single phrase. However, I also think that AI's presence on Wikipedia is no longer tolerable. I was initially hopeful that AI would change the problematic behavior that this complaint was originally about. Instead, AI has tried to use this as a forum for airing his unrelated grudges. AI's recent statements and activities speak for themselves and should be sufficient grounds for a ban. -- MarkSweep ✍ 14:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)