Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Disputes between AI (talk · contribs) and other users including the two users who brought this complaint, MarkSweep (talk · contribs) and NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) mainly concerning articles about critics of Scientology, Keith Henson and David S. Touretsky.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This is probably a rather incomplete rendition of the difficulties which involved several other users and a history of acrimony. Fred Bauder 12:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Systemic bias is a major contributor to the problem underlying this basic dispute. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. The basic dispute is regarding the POV editing by a small demographic of the Wikipedia community who refused to allow my attempts to apply NPOV articles about 2 notable critics of Scientology. In the Keith Henson and David S. Touretzky articles I attempted to NPOV the content by presenting the scientology side of the story. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Throughout the NPOV dispute, personal attacks, reverts, refactoring, removing of messages and other problems surfaced as symptoms of the basic dispute. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Many of my properly attributed edits were refused and reverted with claims of consensus by the small demographic of the Wikipedia community. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. MarkSweep who filed this RfArb was not involved in the original dispute and has apparently taken sides with the small demographic POV editors by scrutinizing my actions while ignoring the blatant violations by the POV editors who refuse to allow me to apply NPOV. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. This RfArb has been a filibuster to slow down the NPOVing of the mentioned articles and has wasted considerable time of everyone involved, meanwhile the small demographic of Wikipedia editors have been left alone to continue their POV editing. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. MarkSweep has constently tried to influence everyone involved with his POV regarding policies and guidelines related to personal attacks. His action focuses on symptoms of the dispute rather than the basic dispute as I have outlined. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. A new RfC, Mediation or Arbitration should be filed to take an impartial and thorough look at the basic dispute. The symptoms should also be addressed, but the basic dispute should not be ignored. --AI 02:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Interactions between AI (talk · contribs) and other editors are characterized by mutual disrespect, including personal attacks, see [1] [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I stopped making personal attack after the RfC on Dreamguy, some of the other users continued to make personal attacks. I have no respect for those who did not reform their actions yet continually tried to correct me. --AI 06:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) AI (talk · contribs) has removed dialogue a number of times from article talk pages in what he describes as refactoring [3] [4] [5], this behavior has included edit warring on talk pages [6] [7]. In contradiction to Wikipedia:No personal attacks he has adapted his own idiosyncratic version of the policy which he has attempted to apply. This has interfered with communications with other users [8], [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. My decision to refactor was based on the current state of WP:NPA which stated that we may remove personal attacks. My refactoring of messages beyond personal attacks was based on my misunderstanding of refactoring. See my entries at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Using "idiosyncratic" referring to me is a personal attack and should not be in an arbitration which is based largely on personal attacks. I had to revert so many times because so many users were reverting my refactoring even when I removed actual personal attacks. --AI 06:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) AI (talk · contribs) is prohibited from removing dialogue of any sort from any talk page or rearranging any talk page, including material which, in AI's opinion, constitute "personal comments" or personal attacks. This does not apply to his own user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removing your own personal attacks can make others' reactions seem exaggerated. Fred Bauder 15:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I can accept Fred Bauer's comment regarding this, and I understand that this does not prohibit me from removing my own past personal attacks. --AI 06:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Guideline suggest we remove our own attacks first and then those by others. I was doing this. --AI 02:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:AI has used a very idiosyncratic interpretation[16][17][18] of civility and associated policies

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. AI's policy suggestions on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks are welcome. Unilateral adoption of his own suggestions as policy [19] is improper. Fred Bauder 13:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Further evidence can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence#AI's definition of "personal attacks/comments". --MarkSweep 16:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have spent considerable time this last week helping to sort out this misunderstanding of WP:NPA. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --AI 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is another personal attack: "idiosyncratic" --AI 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am counting each instance in which I am referred to as idiosyncratic as a personal attack by the writer of this entry (Fred Bauer) and such personal attack should be considered by impartial arbitrators using the current defition and proposed definition of "personal attack." --AI 06:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

to censor comments on talk pages.[20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removal of dialogue Fred Bauder 12:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence#AI attempts to enforce his take on the civility policy for a chronology of events in which AI attempts nine times to remove one portion of a comment written by NicholasTurnbull. --MarkSweep 16:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. That was not intended as censorship; can anyone please point out what I was "censoring?" --AI 07:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. That refactoring was of personal attacks regarding my attribution. Refactoring of the entire statement was based on my misunderstanding of the guideline WP:RPA. Things were happenning fast, I didn't have adequate time to study the guideline fully and I was outnumbered by a false consensus of systemic bias: Scientology critics and supporters in Wikipedia. --AI 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

He has engaged in edit warring[21][22][23], and

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Edit warring over the content of talk pages is unacceptable as these histories showed on August 3. The 3rd link is no longer any good, but could be presumably be found by searching in the backlog. Fred Bauder 14:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Those are merely symptoms of an underlying problem, though a revert war on a talk page is remarkable in and of itself. Part of the general problem is that AI remains stubbornly persistent when opposed by a group of other editors. --MarkSweep 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. The third link should point to the WP:ANI archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive36#AI. --MarkSweep 17:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some other users involved also engaged in edit warring and they should also be corrected. --AI 07:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. 3RR violation was not 4 reverts, 3&4 are one revert. Otherwise, yes I agree that was engaging in edit warring.
3. What Mark refers to as a group of users is highly systemic bias: anti-scientology POV contributors. --AI 07:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

attempts to contact him are rebuffed with him saying that he is unwilling to engage in any further communication on user talk pages.[24] [25][26][27][28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence#The general problem (Attempts to control the conversation) for many other problematic aspects of AI's interactions with the community. --MarkSweep 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also note that this is not merely about failure to communicate (there could be harmless explanations for that), but about AI's explicit refusal to communicate (see the quoted statements where he says that he will not engage in further discussion and that messages left for him will be ignored). --MarkSweep 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is not entirely true which is why I think it is an intentional lie. I communicated with many, many, many users on many, many, many controversial articles for months before this, and I even helped mediate some articles related to Muslims and the Bosnian Genocide. --AI 07:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. MarkSweep is only limiting his evaluation to evidence that works against me. --AI 07:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the early history of the DST article, which was just prior to this "dispute" there was a coordinated effort to make the DST article look good for DST (POV) and bad for Scientology(POV). USENET activity also suggested this effort was coordinated. --AI 07:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Certain users tried to "stop" my contribution with their attempts to overwhelm me with repeated personal attacks, opinions and interpretations of Wikipedia policy. A tag-teaming effort was used to create a false sense of consensus. I viewed it as possibly a campaign by DST/anti-scientology supporters here at Wikipedia. --AI 07:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Certain users insisted that I obey their interpretation, I engaged in several exchanges with them in personal talk pages but they refused to consider my point. I told them I would not communicate with them any further when they insisted on trying to influence my understanding of certain policies/guidelines. --AI 07:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Some who continued to make personal attacks, their remarks contributed to my refusal to continue communication. --AI 02:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Attempts to debate him on article talk pages are reverted by him as "personal comments/attacks".[29][30][31][32][33][34]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence#Status of the guideline on removing personal attacks, and this diff in particular, which to me shows that AI's attempts have caused disruption and confusion. --MarkSweep 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have never seen a policy that enforces a user to engage in debate over irrelevant tangents or over personal attacks. --AI 07:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. [35] and [36] are based on my misunderstanding of refactoring, not avoidance of any relevant debate. --AI 07:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. [37], [38] and [39] contained personal attacks and as I explained above, I removed the entire statement because of my misunderstanding of refactoring. --AI 07:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. I disagree that my attribution to RFW is spurrious. RFW a secondary source and is highly substantiated. RFW is more credible than many of the references used by the anti-scientology pov "systemic bias members" in Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard related articles. --AI 07:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. The comment [40] by [User:Antaeus Feldspar] is a subtle personal attack referring to Scientology technology used to help a person understand a concept. Refactoring of personal attacks is allowable as stated in WP:NPA. --AI 07:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mark's comment regarding personal attacks, refactoring, etc is just his filibuster tactic to avoid the basic dispute --AI 02:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What AI labels "personal comments" by others are not so much comments about him (those would be personal comments), as they are comments directed at him, for example, reminders to respect NPOV, which are perfectly acceptable and only natural on talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Note that the "personal comments" strategy is just one among several others that AI has used to silence those who oppose him. He has also accused others of "biting newcomers" (i.e., him), "original research" (for expressing an opinion on a talk page), straying from the topic (when he himself is off-topic), etc. He will use any kind of Wikipedia-specific buzz-word, policy, guideline, etc. without respect for their conventionally understood meaning and intent. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence#AI fails to respect the spirit of policies. --MarkSweep 16:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is considerable disagreement within the Wikipedia community over what is a personal attack. Mark's conclusions are based on his opinion and not on actual policy. I agree that a couple of my refactorings were mistakes and should not have been removed, but the bulk of my refactoring was of personal comments/attacks. MarkSweep ever-present attempts to influence this arbitration with his opinion rather than letting facts and policies speak for themselves is noted. This "habit" of MarkSweep's addressing new users and enforcing his opinion is that basis for my decision to inform him that I would not communicate with him any further on the subject. --AI 00:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I notified User:Modemac with questions about his POV contributions in Keith Henson.[41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, reasonable request. 'Henson is a critic of Scientology whose actions resulted in his being convicted under an obscure California law regarding the act of "interfering with a religion."' could possibly use more detail, such as citation of title of the law. Fred Bauder 15:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The wording and use of "obscure" is POV which supports HK's case and works against Scientology's charges. It should be noted that the jury decided Keith Henson was guilty. After the case Keith Henson fled the country to avoid the judgement. --AI 08:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my messages.[42]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. ": Flunk, get your TRs in. --Modemac 09:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)" certainly an expression of contempt, perhaps a personal attack phrased in Scientology jargon. Fred Bauder 15:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. It is a personal attack implying my TR's are out. To understand the statement one has to understand what TRs are. TRs are a set of communication Training Routines. If my TR's were out I would not have confronted Modemac on this. Using "flunk, get your trs in" in this medium by non-scientologists is simply hominem, this is not a Scientology Training Academy. --AI 08:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Irmgard is correct that it is a critical remark, but with all due respect Irmgard is incorrect that it is not a personal attack. If Modemac would have said that I get an F on my "contribution" to his talk page, it would have been slightly more "acceptable"... :) --AI 08:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Irmgard's "translation" is incorrect.--AI 02:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. The translation from Scientologese to Wikipedianese (including hints and insinuations) would be "Don't get emotional, you are not neutral either" - surely a critical remark regarding the behavior in the current talk, but IMO not a personal attack. --Irmgard 21:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign last time)[reply]

I notified Modemac again with questions and arguments about my dispute of his POV contributions.[43],[44]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An inquiry yes, but contains implied personal attack. Fred Bauder 15:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Yes an inquiry, and I agree that my comment about his being a propagandist was a personal attack. However, evidence can be collected which would prove my statement, but I am not going to take on that task here, that will be the subject of another arbitration regarding Scientology articles and systemic bias by anti-scientology pov contributors. --AI 08:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my message.[45]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again, open contempt and possible personal attack expressed in Scientology jargon. Fred Bauder 17:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The tone of the debate was very much influenced by AI himself. Prior to July 19, there are numerous examples of AI posting incivil remarks, making personal attacks, etc. This is not under dispute, and I specifically did not bring it up in my complaint because I'm trying to give AI credit for attempting to reform his behavior. In fact I would ask the ArbCom to not impose sanctions on AI for the personal attacks he made prior to about July 19 (of which there were plenty), since he did go around and remove his own incivil remarks. That's a positive sign, and punishing him for it would send the wrong signal that no good deed goes unpunished. However, this only makes sense if others are given the same consideration. I would opt for "forgive and forget" regarding the personal attacks that were made up to about July 21. --MarkSweep 17:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Same as above, just a Flunk. Like me telling another user he gets an F on his contribution or message. I believe it is inappropriate in Wikipedia discussion to use such constructive scientology criticsm unless between two scientologists, for an anti-scientologist to use it on a scientologist is ad hominem. It is very subtle, but the intent is pretty obvious to me, the scientologist. I take it as a personal attack, other scientologists would agree especially coming from a critic of scientology which modemac has at least a 10 year history of. --AI 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Modemac's telling me to file a KR is fine but highly irrelevant in Wikipedia and therefore ad hominem.
3. Regarding Irmgard's comments below: Irmgard's comments are mainly acceptable to me and his last sentence demonstrates how Modemac's statement is a subtle personal attack. Thanks again Irmgard :) However, the interjection "usually a very minor fault" is not true. "sometimes a very minor fault" might be more correct but Flunk is used for just about any error in training. And yes, Modemac's personal attack is minor as far as I am concerned. However, considering my disputes with Modemac, I think he should be a part of this arbitration. This RfArb has been somewhat of a filibuster preventing me from getting impartial mediation regarding the actions of Modemac and several other anti-scientology/critic supporting POV editors. --AI 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Flunk, again. Flunk is used to tell the partner in Scientology practical exercises that he has done something wrong (usually a very minor fault), so it's very common use in Scientology and not insulting . File a K/R: Write a knowlegde report: all Scientologists are expected to write a knowledge report to the ethics department, as soon as they perceive some wrongdoing (can be anything from coming late to blaspheming Hubbard) and for a Scientologist, this counts as a serious warning to not repeat the action - in this context it is, of course, ironical, because Modemac in all probability does not care about knowledge reports written about him to Scientology ethics officers. The insinuation is, that AI believes that Scientology rules work in any case and should be applied everywhere, also here in the Wikipedia context, and that reality is - alas - different. --Irmgard 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:NicholasTurnbull leaves subtle personal attacks implying that my sourcing is spurious and I do not "maintain" a NPOV in Talk:David S. Touretzky.[46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) questions the adequacy of Religious Freedom Watch as a source for the article David S. Touretsky, see article on David Touretzky on Religious Freedom Watch which contains scurrilous attacks on David Trouretzky. Judging by the links this site appears to be affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Apparently IRC logs were also advanced as a source by AI; again, the adequacy of these are questioned. AI is requested to follow NPOV and not use "spurious sources". I don't see "subtle personal attacks" here unless one considers the implications resulting from use of the sources AI advanced. Fred Bauder 18:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This is getting close to the core of the specific complaint, as it is this comment (portions of the last two paragraphs of a long and thoughtful comment by NicholasTurnbull) which AI has attempted to censor (nine times, as outlined in my evidence section linked above). Note that Nicholas does not "imply" anything – he says directly: "your attribution of comments is spurious"; and asks politely: "Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view". There is absolutely nothing incivil about any of this. --MarkSweep 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regarding Fred's comment above: I believe it has been established on the article's talk page that there is no primary source for the IRC logs, the only alleged secondary source is RFW (and mirror sites), which does not give any dates or further information. A number of editors have argued that, therefore, "quotes" from those IRC logs cannot be included in the article. This has not deterred AI from creating a user subpage with those alleged quotes at User:AI/Touretzky quotes. --MarkSweep 20:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Regarding another point in Fred's comment (I don't see "subtle personal attacks" here unless one considers the implications resulting from use of the sources AI advanced.): I think it's clear that "you're using bad sources" does not mean "you're a bad person". Polite criticism is a Good Thing and cannot be construed as a personal attack against the subject of the criticism. --MarkSweep 20:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. This comment by the arbitrator (User:Fred Bauder) is based on Nicholas Turnbull's inconclusive opinion of RFW's IRC logs.

a. The arbitrator (Fred Bauder) has limited his evaluation of RFW to the PDF on David Touretzky. There is also this http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/touretzky3.html on David Touretzky.

b. RFW is a substantiated secondary source and contains a tremendous amount of undisputiably verifiable documentation of other persons in addition to David Touretzky.

i. RFW contains dossiers on more than 50 individuals. For example, Rick Ross' and Keith Henson's dossiers contains reference to numerous verifiable official documents which are undisputible.
References:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/RICK_ROSS_AND_THE_ROSS_INSTITUTE.PDF
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson_cn4.html

ii. RFW's presentation might be somewhat POV, however, most of the evidence provided is thoroughly verifiable such as court records, police records, medical records, etc. See the PDF on The Rick Ross institute.

c. RFW has provided circumstantial evidence which demonstrate the authenticity of the IRC logs are authentic.

d. RFW's affiliation with Scientology is irrelevant unless the arbitrator is suggesting a general bias towards Scientology or Scientologists.

Considering the validity of the bulk of RFW's data, it is a substantiated secondary source and referring to my attribution as spurrious is unsubstantiated. --AI 10:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Regarding Mark's first comment: RFW is a substantiated secondary source, see my arguments above. I took "spurrious" as referring to my attribution. --AI 11:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Regarding Mark's third comment: That is Mark's opinion and his POV regarding the definition of personal attacks which is still being pounded out. If "your using bad sources" cannot be proven, then it may be viewed as a personal attack unless the definition on the blocking policy is going to mention on this type of comment. --AI 12:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Despite my opinion that NichalasTurnbull's comments are personal attacks, I responded to his posting in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[47]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. AI does see the post by NichalasTurnbull as a personal attack, "Addressing my personal activity is irrelevant to this article and with my recent education in Wikipedia policy, my understanding is that it is also a violation of policy." This is not in accord with Wikipedia:No personal attacks which sets the threshold considerably higher. Questioning of the adequacy of sources cannot, in the context of an encyclopedia, be considered a personal attack. AI's statement, "RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. RFW's credibility is equivalent or greater than many critics who are attributed as sources for "critic claims" in other controversial articles." is not reasonable in light of the scurrilous nature of article on David Touretzky on Religious Freedom Watch. Fred Bauder 18:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. And that is precisely the core of the specific complaint. The only editor who thinks that NicholasTurnbull's comments are personal attacks is AI. Nobody else has concurred with AI's opinion, and at least five editors have voiced opposition. Despite all this, AI insisted that an inapplicable, controversial guideline would allow him to remove NicholasTurnbull's reasonable comments. --MarkSweep 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also note that AI's "response" isn't really a response to the substantive issues raised by NicholasTurnbull, but rather an attempt to avoid having to debate him on substance by switching to a meta-debate ("Addressing my personal activity is irrelevant"). --MarkSweep 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. The arbitrator's (Fred Bauder) misinterpretation of WP:NPA is noted. Nowhere does it state that "the threshold" is "considerably higher". The only thing closely resembling an official definition of a personal attack is "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and the examples given in Examples. Considering the plain english of "Comment on content, no on the contributor" the threshold is extremely low and entirely contrary to the arbitrators opinion which gives slack to users regarding personal attacks and opens the door to abuse. The arbitrator's (Fred Bauder) opinion which condones violation of WP:NPA is noted. Yes this is one of the core disputes but personal attacks is not the root of the disputes. Difference of opinion and misinterpreations of WP:NPA which should be addressed in discussion on that policy's talk page. Using a vague policy to attack a user who refactors personal attacks is a further indication of systemic bias on the part of the user who requested this arbitration and the arbitrator making this comment. --AI 00:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. My actions were not an intentional avoidance of debate as Mark is trying to claim. --AI 11:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marudubshinki corrected mispelling in my posting to Talk:David S. Touretzky and left personal attacks.[48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. True enough, AI's contentions regarding computer surveillance were referred to as "paranoid ravings". The scurrilous nature of article on David Touretzky on Religious Freedom Watch is noted.

Comment by parties:

1. Marudubshinki edited my comment which contained no personal attacks and he left a personal attack upon me. --AI 13:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. RFW has documented scurrilous statements by DST and has provided circumstantial evidence to demonstrate the validity of the IRC logs. --AI 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I reverted Talk:David S. Touretzky to remove Marudubshinki's personal attacks and to correct Marudubshinki's editing of my postings(corrected my mispelling).[49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Reverting to and complaining about correction of misspelling is silly. People have opinions about formatting, no fault there to either party. The statement, "1. Don't touch my posts even to correct a mispelling." is out of place in a wiki where correction of spelling is a routine activity to be expected. "6. Your opinion about RFW's criticism makes no sense, but reminds me of my opinion that RFW should sharpen the hatchet. --AI 02:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)" amounts to embracing slander as a weapon. Fred Bauder 20:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. This is particularly telling: AI does not want his own comments edited by anyone ("Don't touch my posts even to correct a mispelling[sic]"), yet he sees nothing wrong with editing other users' comments. --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The unprofessional tone by the arbitrator (Fred Bauder) is noted. --AI 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. The arbitrator's (Fred Bauder) tendency towoard bias is noted: The arbitrator offers his opinion that suggests it is okay to edit other people's posts while supporting opposition of a user's use of refactoring personal attacks which is supported in plain english in WP:NPA --AI 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is not a court of law and the arbitrator (Fred Bauder) is violating [Wikipedia:No original research] regarding "slander" in regards to RFW's substantiated claims which are supported by circumstantial evidence. --AI 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Regarding Mark's comment. I see nothing wrong with others refactoring any personal comments I have made, but I still do not want anyone to edit my other postings without my permission. --AI 13:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I refactored Talk:David S. Touretzky.[50]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. He removed a personal attack but also several paragraphs of dialogue. While the removal was justified it should have been done without removing legitimate dialogue. Fred Bauder 20:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. AI is hiding behind jargon: he did not "refactor" the talk page, he removed comments. --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Mark is hiding behind jargon. --AI 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Official policy is written in plain english, definitive, to the letter, and yet still disputed? --AI 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. The comment that I did not "refactor" is innacurate. I refactored but also made a mistake in removing too much. User's who cannot make such distinctions should not be admins. And users who like policy to be flexible where it supports their case but who like policy to be strict when using it against others should not be admins. --AI 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I refactored Talk:David S. Touretzky.[51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. AI's characterization of this diverges from what is revealed by examination of the edit. He removes a more or less reasonable request on these grounds: "[removed personal comment]", meanwhile he removes two posts by himself made in response Fred Bauder 20:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Again the "refactoring" amounts to removing the portion of NicholasTurnbull's comment mentioned above. --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The comment that I did not "refactor" is innacurate. I refactored but also made a mistake in removing too much. User's who cannot make such distinctions should not be admins. And users who like policy to be flexible where it supports their case but who like policy to be strict when using it against others should not be admins. --AI 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. In some cases I removed my personal attacks and attacks by other users, and in some cases I removed any resultant uncivil discussion thread. --AI 00:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I refactored Talk:David S. Touretzky and left a rebuttal to Modemac's claim that RFW is a hate group.[52]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. AI's refractoring removes some nasty dialogue, "sub-genius, tremble in the presence of a true genius." is particularly ridiculous, and declares that RFW is not a hate group. Fred Bauder 20:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. In this "refactoring", AI removed some of his own personal attacks and incivil remarks. I should point out that the occasionally acerbic tone of the debate was very much influenced by AI's prior behavior. AI had posted numerous incivil remarks before, which apparently sparked some of the responses. However, that's not what's at stake here at all (incivil remarks were indeed made by many editors posting on Talk:David S. Touretzky, and AI was a major player in that game). Rather, what's at stake is that AI is attempting to use a guideline on removing personal attacks to censor comments which only he alone views as personal attacks. --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Re AI's claims about "official policy" below (see also Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks): First, the status of various policies and guidelines is not the central issue here. It is irrelevant whether personal attacks can be removed or not, because Nicholas's statements were not personal attacks. Second, WP:NPA links to WP:RPA and summarizes this by saying that personal attacks may be removed. However, because WP:RPA is the more specific guideline, WP:NPA cannot be interpreted to mean that any and all personal attacks can be removed, when all it does is provide a pointer to the relevant guideline. --MarkSweep 00:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. My comment was simply a personal attack which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. --AI 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. MarkSweep's evaluation is illogical. What sparked the dispute was the biased attitude of several users who refused to recognize that RFW was mostly substantiated. I agree that my personal attacks did not help to defuse the dispute, but my personal attacks were not the beginning of the dispute. --AI 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. MarkSweep's hastiness to pass judgement without considering all relevant facts relating to the dispute is noted. --AI 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. WP:NPA states twice in plain english that users may remove personal attacks. Mark is in disagreement with official policy. --AI 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I refactored Talk:David S. Touretzky.[53],[54],[55]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. "Refactoring" is not descriptive of the edits which removed a critical comment by another user; then a complaint by himself. The third edit removes extended dialogue involving several users. Fred Bauder 11:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Again, removing portions of NicholasTurnbull's comment. --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The arbitrator's (Fred Bauder) incompetence is noted. Refactoring explains at least one of those edits precisely. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. In other comments by me (above), I have already explained the basis of my decision to refactor and I have already explained my mistakes in refactoring. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac reverted some of my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[56]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Note how it is AI who "refactors" and others who "revert". --MarkSweep 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. In other comments by me (above), I have already explained my mistakes which resulted from my misunderstanding of refactoring at the time. And yes they restored (by revert) comments which i viewed as personal attacks. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. MarkSweep's comment is unecessary. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I notified Modemac, asking why he made/restored personal attacks.[57]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is evidence that I did try to resolve the dispute. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is evidence that MarkSweep lies in his "confirmation"[58] that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.[59]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This was based on my misunderstanding of refactoring at the time as I have already explained in comments above. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a response to my message.[60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is a personal attack by Modemac, not exactly the same as but similar to other ad hominem attacks from Modemac wherein he uses Scientology terminology. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[61]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I have correct my misunderstanding of refactoring and accept Modemac's revert as valid. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NicholasTurnbull reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[62]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. NicholasTurnbull's revert restored his comment which I take as personal attacks considering the evidence and my comments above regarding my view that RFW is a highly substantiated secondary source which present significant circumstantial evidence which would prove the authenticity of the IRC logs. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.[63]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This revert is based on my misunderstanding as explained in my comments above. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I notified Modemac with a warning.[64]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This evidence is self-explanatory and proves that MarkSweep has conveyed false witness against me in his "confirmation"[65] that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac restored personal attacks.[66]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Self-explanatory. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac made uncivil comments and personal attacks in his edit summary.[67]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Self-explanatory. --AI 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac restored personal attacks.[68]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modemac filed a request for mediation.[69]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Please refer to the full RfM. Here we see some of the same behavior from AI as in the present RfAr: accusations of dishonesty, hiding behind policy, etc. The most troubling aspect is that AI believes that "This request [for mediation] is an attempt to discredit me" rather than an attempt to resolve a dispute. --MarkSweep 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Here is the RfM: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Talk:David S. Touretzky --AI 01:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Modemac was avoiding the actual dispute which was over RFW. Here was my initial response[70] to Modemac's RfM. I asked for the mediation to proceed and changed my mind because I felt Modemac's statement was an avoidance of the actual dispute over RFW. However I still welcomed the request with my change that I tolerated the request. Ed Poor declined the request and suggested RfC. MarkSweep took itupon himself to advance it to RfArb even though Mark wasn't involved with the initial disputes. This RfArb is a result of MarkSweep's overeagerness and apparent misunderstanding of the dispute resolution policy which states that RfArb is a last resort. Considering the vast amounts of time wasted on this RfArb, MarkSweep and the arbitrators who have accepted his request for arbitration have massively hindered productivity by their off-policy decision. This "cabal" and several other major problems regarding systemic bias with Wikipedia are the basis of my tentative decision to quit Wikipedia. --AI 01:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. MarkSweeps comment contains more evidence of his inability to fully evaluate a situation. --AI 01:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modemac posts to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] that he has filed a request for mediation.[71],[72]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I post a message to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] questioning the basis for dispute.[73]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NicholasTurnbull reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[74]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I made a contribution to David S. Touretzky with an edit summary which clearly expressed my changes.[75]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I reverted to restore my factoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[76]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Joolz reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[77]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:MarkSweep reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[78]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I notified MarkSweep with my explanation of my refactoring. In light of Modemac's RfM, I told MarkSweep I would not communicate with him any further unless he was a mediator.[79]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. There was no mention of the RfM in AI's message (plus I don't see how a pending RfM would stop AI from talking to a third party); but that is beside the point. Look at the end of AI's message: "If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. Unless you are a mediator, I will have no further communication with you on this." What AI is saying here that he will only stop when the objections against his actions are voiced in a civil manner, yet at the same time he refuses to engage in a civil dialogue aimed at getting him to stop. In my opinion, AI is just hiding behind policy and/or a false sense of propriety (apparently, it's not Ok to talk about the RfM issues, but it's Ok to continue the behavior that led to the RfM). --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep responded on his own talk page with his opinion.[80]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's first contribution to [David S. Touretzky] consisted of partially reverting my contribution.[81]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkSweep notified me with his opinion as to what defines "personal comments."[82]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is not just my opinion. AI's removal of NicholasTurnbull's comments was opposed by at least four other editors. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep notified me that he will file a request for arbitration against me.[83]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. AI omitted one crucial step here, namely his response[84] to my attempt to explain the scope of the personal attacks policy, which was simply: "As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored, take your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks." That is what prompted me to file the RfAr. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep filed a request for arbitration assigning me as Party 1 and himself as Party 2. His statement contained a personal attack describing me as idiosyncratic and he states that I have explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors.[85]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Anyone can read what I wrote and decide whether my statement of the complaint is or isn't a personal attack. There's no point splitting hairs of "any communication", which has to be understood in the context of the dispute. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's second edit to [David S. Touretzky] was in response to database errors or an edit conflict with me.[86]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jdforrester filed a 3RR report on me.[87]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jdforrester notified me of the 3RR violation.[88]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I notified Jdforrester the 4th was not a revert.[89]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. AI is again splitting hairs. Fact is that he removed the same portion of NicholasTurnbull's comment at least nine times in total (see my section on the evidence page). By my count, there were five total deletions (including the four reverts) of NicholasTurnbull's comment within a 24 hour period. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Jdforrester notified me expressing his disagreement about the 4th revert.[90]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I notified Jdforrester about the disagreement.[91]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkSweep notified me with his opinion about personal comments, calling his opinion a "clarification."[92]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is a duplicate entry; see MarkSweep notified me with his opinion as to what defines "personal comments above. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Jdforrester notified me with an explanation that he has not abused any previlidges.[93]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I responded to Jdforrester's explanation and redacted some of my misunderstandings.[94]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When I tried to edit, I was informed by the server that I had been blocked for 3RR violation. User:Snowspinner statement was something to the effect of "blindly trusting Jdforrester". I never received notification from the admin to my talk page. Simply blocked. I appealed to Snowspinner with an email. Admin never responded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. AI had already been warned on his talk page by Jdforrester. --MarkSweep 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep notified me that his request for arbitration had been filed.[95]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is not under dispute. I fail to see how this, or the rest of this section, is relevant to the specific complaint that AI has engaged in persistent, illegitimate attempts to censor or remove other user's reasonable comments, or the general complaint that AI is using policies and guidelines as part of his tactics to silence those who oppose him. --MarkSweep 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I reverted to restore my contribution to David S. Touretzky.[96]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's third edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a revert of my restoration of my original contribution.[97]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anon user (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) edited David S. Touretzky making some changes but also added some POV.[98]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[99]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I restored NicholasTurnbull's legitimate comments which AI had censored. --MarkSweep 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I partially edited Anon user's (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) changes.[100]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Relevance? --MarkSweep 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[101]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Again, all I did was restore NicholasTurnbull's comment. --MarkSweep 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep attempted to delete one of my user sub pages with VfD.[102]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I still believe that User:AI/Touretzky quotes must disappear, per Wikipedia:Libel, and because it recreates highly problematic content that was rejected from article space. It has been pointed out to me, and it's perfectly clear to me in hindsight, that a VfD was the wrong way of accomplishing that. During the VfD AI indicated that the page was intended to be temporary and that it could be deleted under certain circumstance, but he has not requested speedy deletion yet (which is possibly for user subpages when requested by the user). --MarkSweep 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's fourth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a restoration of content which was deleted by me accidentally due to a database error or edit conflict. I was never in support of removal of that content.[103]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Joolz reverted my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].[104]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Calton makes personal attack in [Talk:David S. Touretzky]. [105]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I posted a comment to Talk:Keith Henson about Keith's explosives background.[106] No one answered my comment as of 25 July 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I changed [Keith Henson] according to my comment.[107]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Marksweep reverted my edit without discussion, only a brief comment in his edit summary.[108]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because I agree with him partially I did not revert his edit, but only restored my contribution that he deleted.[109]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Touretzky edited [David S. Touretzky] and left an edit summary "no such post as "scientific director"; my degrees are in CS"[110]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[User:Touretzky] edited [David S. Touretzky] again.[111]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

After a few other contributors reverted my edits on [Keith Henson], I restored correctly attributed content.[112]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. For what it's worth, "correctly attributed" does not equal "unbiased". This had all been discussed on the talk page. --MarkSweep 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. MarkSweep demonstrates is ability to be illogical. If a murderer's article states he is a murderer, one could claim it that "correctly attributed" does not equal "unbiased". --AI 00:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Having still not answered my comment regarding disputed content, MarkSweep reverted my edit to [Keith Henson] and left the edit summary "rv: take it to talk".[113]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is AI's filibuster tactic: I can only interpret his statement to mean that he thinks it is the case that editing cannot proceed unless every last one of his comments has been addressed to his satisfaction. This despite the fact that his comments had been adequately discussed before and he had only met with opposition and no support for the disputed description. --MarkSweep 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's fifth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was simple wikification and a "valid" removal of link to amazon.[114]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I do not see the relevance of this. There is no dispute here. If I were forced to make one up, I would object to AI's use of scare quotes when describing my changes as valid. --MarkSweep 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep makes a contribution to [David S. Touretzky] yet he also deletes my contribution.[115]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This issue was discussed on the talk page. What I removed was a biased statement. In a nutshell, Touretzky is referred to as a "free speech activist", and AI wants to include a passage from the court transcript in the MPAA v. 2600 case in which the judge, acting on an objection from the plaintiff, excludes one minor part of Touretzky's testimony where Touretzky apparently voices his opinions on the scope and application of the First Amendment. Touretzky was present as an expert witness on the expressive use of computer code, and the judge doesn't want to hear his non-expert opinion on the First Amendment. The judge said essentially the same thing to another expert witness too, as he should have. This is completely standard and unremarkable. AI's description of this was as follows: "Although most of Touretzky's testimony was accepted, the Judge refused to admit Touretzky's testimony regarding freedom of speech and noted that Touretzky was not an expert on the first amendment." I don't see that this is a fair description (the article says right away that Touretzky is a computer scientist, not a lawyer; the routine comment by the judge was taken out of context and creates a misleading account of Touretzky's testimony and expertise), at least one other editor, User:Kelly Martin, agrees with me, and nobody agrees with AI on this. --MarkSweep 18:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have already justified my inclusion of the judges quote. However, these comments by Sweep and JesseW are perfect evidence of systemic bias resulting from un-informed "dupes." --AI 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. At least two other editors agree that the statement is irrelevant and misleading; i.e. Kelly Martin, and myself. JesseW 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep reverts [David S. Touretzky] based on his POV about my contribution, yet his revert removes more than he mentions.[116]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. While I don't see how this is at all relevant to the present complaint, let me point out that another editor, User:Kelly Martin, had also discussed the disputed sentence on the talk page and arrived at the same conclusion, namely that the passage that AI attempted to add was biased. The only other thing that was removed in my revert was a change from "Dr. Touretzky's research interests" back to "Research interests", which I was about to rephrase anyway. --MarkSweep 18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. This isn't relevant to MarkSweep's point of view, this is MY complaint about MarkSweep. In my opinion MarkSweep is a sophisticated but duped sociopath. --AI 00:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkSweep rewords a section of [David S. Touretzky], his most significant edit as of August 1, 2005.[117]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The only relevance I can see is that AI is trying to suggest that since my prior contributions to this article were not significant in his opinion, I should or should not ... do what exactly? This is pure rhetoric. --MarkSweep 18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. On the other hand, AI does seem to think that only editors who add text (no matter how flawed) should be allowed to delete/revert: [118]. --MarkSweep 23:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Definite progress Fred Bauder 15:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Thank you Irmgard, and everyone: I'm not suprised by the many instances of systemic bias, but don't forget about #Locus of dispute. --AI 00:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. I'd like the arbitrators to also consider the change of attitude AI showed in an unrelated case: Compare the messages of June with the message of August 7. [119] --Irmgard 20:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]