Revision as of 17:49, 20 November 2005

• ]

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Involved parties

Most prominantly User:Kevin baas, although others are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

On his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

This dispute has been ongoing for well over a year, and is a dispute of wilful POV pushing and revert warring. Among the contributors is Kevin Baas, who narrowly escaped a previous arbcom case. The issue has appeared on the mailing list, and numerous editors have already weighed in.

Statement by Snowspinner

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and its associated sub-articles have been drowning in original research, POV, and edit warring since their creation. So far an astonishing 50,000 words have been written on the matter, all meticulously sourced. However, the sourcing is overwhelmingly towards nonnotable and POV sources, and the articles have been tightly controlled by their creators so as to stifle any attempts at dissent, including addition of NPOV and original research tags. The result has been to keep mostrously bad work on Misplaced Pages that stands in violation of numerous policies. Most flagrant in this has been User:Kevin baas, who has added copyvio material to the article and persistantly refused to acknowledge the existence of an NPOV dispute, defending all sources, including things such as treating Ben Cohen, the founder of Ben and Jerry's, as a notable source on election fraud, the use of partisan blogs as a major source, and the production of original research through novel aggregation of facts. Simply put, the articles have grown unmanagably bad, and none of the tools offered to editors are making a significant effort in fixing them - I ask for the arbcom to put some rules on articles that will allow editors invested in NPOV to do the gut-editing these articles need without sparking yet another revert war. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ammendment

I would think that , Several of , , (Particularly the second), and some variation on the "cite sources" policy, although none of the listed principles apply.

Particular tactics of stonewalling and edit warring that seem to me greivously offensive are the removal of NPOV tags despite a well-stated dispute (I did not revert war this point) as with . (Note that a list of every problematic citation has been on the talk page for quite a while now). Also problematic is the insistence on leaving bad information in place until it is fixed instead of removing badly sourced and POV material and reconstructing the article from there - in other words, an insistence on leaving the article in its POV and bad form until the task of creating a "perfect" article is finished. Examples of this mentality are at and . Further problematic is the usage of a GAO report as direct source material for the article - paragraphs were copied wholesale into the article. This is not copyvio (The GAO report is public domain), but it's still the importation of original research, and the entire thing was quoted to a Wired Magazine article instead of directly to the report.

Aggressively reverting all attempts to tag an article with a dispute tag or to remove material that is sourced to extremist blogs and ice cream moguls is a violation of policies. Since it's a dispute with quite a few editors, an article content RfC would be most appropriate, which consists of a link to the article - two VfDs on the entire block of articles and a mailing list post have clearly directed enough outside editors. As is usually the case with situations like this, the outside editors made a noble effort, got reverted, and wandered off to do other things.

That enough specific evidence of policy issues? Phil Sandifer 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Fred

I do not think it is primarily a content dispute - the case it most resembles is the first Lyndon LaRouche case - in fact, the central issue with the provided sources (Reliance on mutually self-referential sources from a minor and extremist point of view) is identical in both cases. But it is, to my mind, a dispute over the application of several policies - NPOV, NOR, as well as article ownership. It's certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with by the arbcom before - see and for examples of cases that have similar relationships to content. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The question of the reliability of sources remains unsettled. Unreliable sources may not be used, reliable sources may be, but the location of the dividing line is uncertain. It may depend on context. Fred Bauder 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at - at least my first post in that thread, in which I go over all 68 of the sources. Among the things being used are Green Party press releases, geocities pages, webforum threads, blog posts, and several citations to Michael Moore, all made without crediting the claims in any sort of "Michael Moore alledges" way. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Carbonite

The main problem with these articles (see Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also for a mostly complete list) is that they grew extremely fast and were quickly considered "owned" by a tiny group of editors. Attempts to remove even the most trivial of information are usually met with reverts and demands to justify all changes. I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept arbitration on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/1)

• Recuse. Raul654 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. The Committee is not your mother. There is not enough substance to this. James F. (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, without prejudice. Come back when you have a better statement of what conduct is violating what policy. Conclusive pleadings will not be accepted. May I suggest a RfC? Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, as per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• My feeling is that you are asking us to engage in a policy debate Fred Bauder 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone

Involved parties

I request a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ted Wilkes
• Wyss
• Onefortyone

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Well, this very step has been tried by Ted Wilkes it seems. He has tried to RfAr Fred Bauder over this all. I would like to get a wiki-restraining order between Onefortyone and the two others. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 2

The filer of this RfAr has taken no steps towards any sort of dispute resolution or mediation and contrary to the template instructions, has declined to explain why he thinks such efforts would be presumably fruitless. Meanwhile, 141 is currently on probation for abusive editing practices and tactics. I was mistaken in my initial impression that he'd been prohibited from editing celebrity articles because I misinterpreted some related edit summaries before before being contacted by Fred Bauder and reading the arbcom decision for myself. After I was contacted by Fred Bauder that single time, I never touched the articles again. Aside from Fred Bauder, nobody has ever meaningfully contacted me about my behaviour towards 141 in the past. I think it's because few really care about the inclusion of unsupported gossip in celebrity articles... it is rather boring, truth be told. Anyway I'm always open to helpful suggestions in these efforts to stabilize the articles involved.

Arbcom members are respectfully requested not to conflate past issues concerning 141 with my recent attempts to explain Ted Wilkes' long and extremely unpopular RfAr against Fred Bauder on the project talk page. Given the timing of this RfAr, I'm convinced that the filer has included me in it as backhanded punishment for my commentary concerning Ted Wilkes' above-mentioned RfAr. I have informed the filer that this is a blatant, abusive breach of WP policy and that I am deeply unhappy about it. This RfAr is not necessary since any active admin or bureaucrat can contact me on my talk page and politely ask me to desist from any given behaviour and I more than likely will.

As for User:Calton, with whom I cannot remember having had any contact in the past, readers will please note that I began using metaphors (which he cites below) only after he and others had begun directing sarcasm at me on this project's talk page. I was trying to lightheartedly diffuse that by repeating back their metaphors myself in my replies. For example, Calton was the first to use the signal-to-noise-ratio metaphor, as a reference to wordiness. Later, he posted the following note to me, which I think speaks for itself.

I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. But you ask Fred and others to grasp very long words by Ted. This make no sense. This called "double standard." You use long words wrong (like "vandalism") even when people tell you it is wrong. You call people "trolls" for when they say you are wrong. This called "bad faith."

I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. I say I will write with big letters and short words. I say I will send to you so you can grasp sense. You still not grasp sense but throw more dirt, so I make more clear now. See?

Where can I mail notes to you? I will use as many stamps as I need. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across the encyclopedia I will no longer be participating in this project. Wyss 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

User:Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Reply_by_Onefortyone. Significantly, user Wyss and Ted Wilkes are frequently accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, a liar, a troll, of fabricating texts, etc. See Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, , etc. etc. Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See , , , , . He deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See and . He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted by him. See . Wyss accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See and . Both Ted Wilkes and Wyss are denigrating all books and articles I have used for my Misplaced Pages contributions. They are constantly reverting my edits, which are supported by several independent, and published, sources, presumably because these sources are not in line with their personal view. For instance, they have repeatedly called reputed biographer Gavin Lambert, which was one of my sources, a gossip book writer, referring to a positive Guardian review which actually said "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also Talk:Gavin_Lambert#Lambert_the_insightful_chronicler_of_Hollywood. Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#3RR_Violation. Significantly, another user stated on the Talk:Elvis Presley page: "what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something 'bad' about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the 'system' prevents those things from staying there for too long." See . There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See , , , , , , , , . For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits. The blanket reversions continue. Recently, contributions by administrator FCYTravis were also reverted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See , , and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions. Onefortyone 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am now providing diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of harrassing Onefortyone after arbitration closed on 3 November 2005:

• On 6 November, Ted Wilkes falsely claimed that I had violated probation. He says, "I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions here and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. See Talk:Elvis_Presley#Violation_of_probation_by_User:Onefortyone.
• Since 8 November, Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Gavin Lambert article referring to the Arbitration Committee ruling. See , , , . Wyss was even asking in his edit summary, "why hasn't this user been blocked as per the arbcom ruling?" Administrator FCYTravis reinstated most parts of my edits (see ), but his contributions were also repeatedly reverted by Ted Wilkes. See and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions.
• Since 7 November, there were also numerous reverts by Ted Wilkes and Wyss of my contributions to the Nick Adams page. See , , . Wyss falsely claimed in his edit summary that he was reverting "edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". See . Ted Wilkes even removed the version by administrator FCYTravis. See , .
• Since 8 November, both Ted Wilkes and Wyss were reverting my contributions to the James Dean article. See , , , . Wilkes also reverted the version by administrator FCYTravis. See ,

Here are some diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these cases of harrassment after they occurred:

• Talk:James Dean page: , , , .
• Talk:Nick Adams page: , , , . . Onefortyone 22:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On 18 November 2005, User:Wyss still accused me on his talk page of having used the rumours section of an article "as a wedge from which to seed Elvis Presley with Google-friendly keywords which would lead to tabloid books by David Brent." See . Such an absurd accusation clearly shows that Wyss is not really willing to put an end to the edit war with me. Onefortyone 21:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Calton

I find Wyss' statement that he'll knock off his misapplication of Onefortyone's probation if asked by an admin to be more than a little disingenuous, considering

• that he HAS been notified by an admin, Fred Bauder.
• that he is being notified of his misapprehension of the probation by one of the people who actually crafted it, so therefore might be expected to have first-hand knowledge of what it means.
• that he falsely characterizes Fred Bauder's post as a threat of ArbCom, since what it actually says is I think complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case, which is a (in my opinion accurate) characterization of Wyss's behavior and its potential consequences.

--Calton | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll note that Wyss's addition doesn't respond to s single one of the points I raised, in addition to throwing in an out-of-context quote. He left off the preceding posts, whereby he, despite claiming that the ArbCom members are expected to plow through all 3,000 words of Ted Wilkes' request below and sift for the nuggets of meaning...

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that should be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

...he then, in groundlessly questioning my qualification to comment (...have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?), he professes to not understand my simple 92-word answer (Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post) AND its bullet-pointed follow-up.

In other words, he's being disingenuous and evasive, and it appears to be his normal operating mode. He certainly lacks any standing to complain about sarcasm, given his liberal use of it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:FuelWagon re wyss wilkes and onefortyone

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Please provide diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of "harrassing" onefortyone after arbitration closed. (A brief look at the statement by onefortyone shows that most diffs of alleged bad behaviour occur in September or October.) Then please provide diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these alleged cases of harrassment after they occurred. No, a request for arbitration by Wyss or Wilkes against Fred Bauder does not satisfy either an example of harrassment against onefortyone or an attempt to resolve said harrassment.

Furthermore, FredBauder is far too involved with these editors to accept or reject this request for arbitration against Wyss and Wilkes. Fred should have recused himself from Wilkes's RFA against him, and he should clearly recuse himself from this one. That he accepted this RFA against Wilkes and Wyss without a single diff showing either editor actually harassing onefortyone or a single diff showing anyone actually trying to resolve the alleged behaviour is telling.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, to the point that numerous editors have gotten emotionally involved. And I mean "numerous". And I don't mean "everyone you percieve to be the enemy here". Given a complete lack of evidence of misbehaviour, a complete lack evidence of any real attempt to resolve the alleged misbehaviour, and the acceptance by a member of arbcom who has a clear conflict of interest, I call a time out and a cooling off period. Everyone gets to go to their respective corners and chill out for a while. Because this is looking far more like someone is getting railroaded than any sort of legitimate attempt to resolve a real dispute. FuelWagon 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(update) user onefortyone has provided some diffs that have occurred since the arbcom case has closed. All the dates for the diffs occur in November, so I'm just going to provide the diffs with just the date of the month in them. This is what it looks like when laid out sequentially.

evidence of disputed behaviour: 88899910101012121213

attempts to resove dispute: 11 1113131313131313131313 16

So, pretty much all the diffs of disputed behaviour occurred before anyone attempted to resolve the dispute. The two attempts to resolve on the 11th were both by the same person, JackofOz, which doesn't meet the RfC requrement and they're fairly indirect attempts. Assuming you count those attempts, you're looking at a total of four diffs of alleged harrassment that occurred on or after the 11th 12121213. I don't know how much of a stickler arbcom is, but four edits doesn't seem to warrant their attention. The serious attempts to resolve the dispute seem to have occurred on teh 13th, when Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13 (Wyss or Wilkes or both cited the arbcom ruling in some of their edits that are cited as alleged harrassment. I don't know what the ruling was, but it would seem that whatever Kelly told them, plus multiple attempts to resolve the issue, cleared things up and resolved whatever problem existed). There are no diffs of alleged harrassment provided that occur after the 13th. Personally, I would declare that the attempts to resolve the dispute on the 13th, did in fact, resolve the dispute. Can we move on now? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept (as an addenndum to the original 141 case seems sensible). James F. (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, formerly known as Famekeeper

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon, complaining party (party 1)

• EffK, defendant
• Famekeeper, defendant

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Misplaced Pages to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Defendant's response shows that he is aware of the request. Robert McClenon 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A user conduct Request for Comments was posted in July 2005. The link has been deleted from the user conduct RfC page, but the RfC itself is available at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. The RfC summarizes the previous steps that were taken prior to posting the RfC.

Statement by party 1

The RfC contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Statement by party 2

Concurrent to this RfA I posted ] my sole disputant, ] ,],]User:Str1977 - ],],], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false mediator ] ,],] , ] ,] ,] , ]. See :] , updated talk at ]

McClenon does not understand , ],],]], ] the sources ] of my bulk contributions ]],],],http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,], and WP corrections , ] ,]], ] , nor my real disputant : ],] ,]](] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source ],]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: ] ,], has accepted the gist of my sources ] ,and NPOV ]. I believe that WP has finally enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I have repaired serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner ] ,] ,],], ]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here ],] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation ] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world ] at large ], ] , ] from Misplaced Pages , following from my demands that ] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless ], ], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ],] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism ]] ] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Str1977 started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability ].

All these users should be admonished .

This ] ] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism , ] ,] , of source ]],] something reflected in greater cyberspace . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulate Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV . Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

• that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
• that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
• that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
• that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/0)

• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse (Wikinfo editor) Fred Bauder 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tmayes1999

Involved parties

• Tmayes1999

and

• Christopher Thomas
• Fastfission
• DV8 2XL

Brief summary

User:Tmayes1999 repeatedly places content at A-bomb, despite consensus that it be merged/redirected to nuclear weapon and nuclear weapon design.

Confirmation of awareness of request

Notices were placed on the following pages:

• Talk:A-bomb -
• Talk:Nuclear weapon -
• User talk:Tmayes1999 -
• User talk:Fastfission -
• User talk:DV8 2XL -
• As I'm the one filing the RFArb, I can be assumed to be aware of it without a note on my user page.

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

Extensive discussion has been held on the following pages. In all cases, the consensus was that any new content in A-bomb should be merged into Nuclear weapon and/or Nuclear weapon design, with A-bomb itself being a redirect to one of these pages.

• Talk:A-bomb
• Talk:Nuclear weapon
• Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention/Physics

Additional attempts to explain to Tmayes1999 what the rationale for the merge/redirect was were made on:

• User talk:Tmayes1999

Additional correspondence has occurred via email. If users choose to quote it, it can be put in their statements.

Statement by Christopher Thomas

I became aware of A-bomb when it appeared on Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention/Physics as a page needing cleanup. At that point, it had been merged/redirected to nuclear weapon at least twice. After surveying the associated conversation threads on Talk:A-bomb and Talk:Nuclear weapon, I concluded that it did indeed appear to be duplicate material, and reverted to the most recent redirect page. Since then, it has been repeatedly restored by Tmayes1999 and reverted by other users.

Fastfission, DV8 2XL, and others have tried to explain to Tmayes1999 that a duplication of material from Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design really isn't a good idea, that he should expand those two articles if he feels they aren't sufficiently thorough, and have requested that he improve his fact-checking, spelling, and grammar both in A-bomb and in his changes to Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design. I've stayed out of this.

I received Misplaced Pages-relayed email on 15 Nov. 2005 from Tmayes1999 accusing me of malicious vandalism. I attempted to explain relevant Misplaced Pages policies regarding duplication of content. While he hasn't called me names since then, comments on User talk:Tmayes1999 indicate that other users have been called similar things by him. --Christopher Thomas 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Point of clarification: I've started an RFC, as suggested by Theresa Knott, but I have strong doubts that it will accomplish much. It may give formal approval to getting an admin to lock A-bomb in redirect form, but Tmayes1999 has already spent much effort attempting to modify ] in ways that other editors have not considered appropriate, indicating that his disputed editing activities are not limited to the A-bomb article. The reason that I went straight to RFArb is that I do not think that Tmayes1999 will accept instructions to change his ways unless they have the ArbCom's backing. Several editors, including myself, have repeatedly tried to point him at the relevant policies and explain matters already (per talk page cites above). This does not appear to have had any substantial impact. --Christopher Thomas 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Additional diff showing Tmayes1999's resistance to Misplaced Pages process, and disrespect for other Misplaced Pages users:

Choice quotes include:

What have here is some immature megalomanic , no good kids with an unreasonable and rationaly absurd, attitude trying to inflate their ego by abusing me,and doing me wrong (...)

What you did was stupid, rationaly absurd, abusive arbritary, and wrong. You merely showed that you are immature , megalomaniac (...)

Statement by Tmayes1999

(Please limit your statement to 500 words) The other partys in this dispute have been wrongly deleting and redirecting an article, I wrote in wickipedia called A-Bomb. I want this article restored as a stand alone article in wickipedia. I seek to enforce my right to have my own A-bomb article , which is separate from the nuclear weapons article, and the nuclear weapon design articles in wickipedia.

That is all I want. That it is alll I seek here. I want the other parties to this dispute to leave my A-bomb article in wickipedia alone. The other partys in this dispute have no right to insist that their nuclear weapons articles be the only wickipedia articles about nuclear weapons. They have no right to act like malicous vandals by deleting, and redirecting my A-bomb article. If I were to delete and redirect their nuclear weapons article,again , and again in order to insist that my A-bomb article be the only one in wickepedia , and their articles be deleted, and redirected in favor of my A-bomb article : I would be doing them a wrong. I demand that the wrong doing of the other partys in this dispute against me me ,and against my A-bomb article be ended. Tmayes1999

Statement by Fastfission

The user has a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding about how Misplaced Pages works, both socially and technically (so far, this is the best example of both issues). I began with the assumption that with a patient explanation and polite assistance the user would eventually come around and be able to channel his obvious enthusiasm into producing good content. However this does not seem to have been the case, and the user has not provided any indications of change in a positive direction or willingness to address the criticisms by others.

I second the factual account given by User:Christopher Thomas above. Though I'll admit it is a bit condescending to say, I feel a bit sorry for the editor in question because they are clearly in some way very confused, and they clearly have enthusiasm about the topic but are unable at this point to express it in a productive manner, for reasons unknown to me.

Statement by DV8 2XL

In Talk:Nuclear weapon User:Bluemoose asked why A-bomb had a separate article, this is when I first became involved with this issue. I stated there that as A-bomb was poorly written, full of factual errors and redundant that it should be but up for AfD and that it was my intention to do so if there was some support from other editors. The conclusion, after several exchanges, and an attempt to clean it up, was that the article should be redirected, and so it was. Detailed reasons were given to User:Tmayes1999 who failed to responded with rational counterarguments but instead only kept asserting that he wanted the A-bomb article restored. His final communication to us was as follows:

I want my A-bomb article restored and left alone by the people who have been trying to delete it or redirect it. THAT IS ALL THAT ASK FOR . THESE PEOPLE WERE IN THE WRONG TO TAMPER WITH MY A-BOMB ARTICLE. i AM VERY ANGRY ABOUT THIS MATTER. FROM ARBRITATION : i WANT JUSTICE. I WANT THIS GREAT WRONG CORRECTED. TMAYES1999 (sic)

• DV8 2XL 05:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject for now. Start a rfc on this. if the community agrees it's better to have A bomb as a redirect to nuclear weapon then do it and get an admin to protect the page. You don't need us to sort this one out. Theresa Knott ] 07:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject per Theresa. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 18:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Jayjg 20:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, far too early, as with Theresa. James F. (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 and others acting in concert

Involved parties

Nobs01 Rangerdude Cognition Herschelkrustofsky Sam_Spade

These editors, in various combinations and in various ways, have recently particpated in an editing war involving Misplaced Pages entries under my real name Chip Berlet, and the name of my employer Political Research Associates, both on the text pages and the discussion pages. I have been involved in editing disputes with all of these editors. The current editing war at Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates gives the appearance of using text entries in Misplaced Pages and discussion pages to bully another editor (me - Cberlet) in retaliation for editing disputes. A policy regarding such situations needs to be articulated, and if appropriate, the participants named above held accountable.--Cberlet 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Nobs01 - User_talk:Nobs01#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

• Rangerdude - User_talk:Rangerdude#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

• Cognition - User_talk:Cognition#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

• Herschelkrustofsky - User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

• Sam_Spade - User_talk:Sam_Spade#Arbitration_filed_naming_you

• Cberlet - User_talk:Cberlet#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

At various times I have been in mediation or participated in requests for comments with most of these editors. I am currently in a stalled mediation with Nobs01 and a dormant mediation with Sam_Spade. Herschelkrustofsky is the subject of an arbitration sanction that involved LaRouche entires in which I participated. --Cberlet 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Also sought mediation with Rangerdude and Nobs01 --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Cberlet

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Misplaced Pages when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity. The editors named in this arbitration vary greatly in terms of their behavior, with Nobs01 having the most problematic edit history. Some other editors named have simply participated on the discussion page. All have been involved in editing conflicts with me as a Wiki editor, and then been involved in editing or discussing the entries on me and my employer.

At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?

Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?--Cberlet 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche and Chip Berlet -follow links after "user in question" who is Cberlet.

Nobs01 proclaims that after his superior edits I "crapped my pants" .

Cognition uploads distorted image to entry on Chip Berlet after inserting POV into Chip Berlet

After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material .--Cberlet 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, also suggests I am a government agent: "One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Misplaced Pages as an attempt to relive his glory days." .

After editorial content disputes with Sam_Spade and Sam_Spade telling me "I suggest you chill the fuck out" I seek mediation Sam_Spade visits Chip Berlet to add negative material --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

After editorial content disputes with me, Rangerdude visits Chip Berlet to add negative material --Cberlet 14:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Rangerdude

Insofar as it involves me, this request for arbitration is completely frivolous. This is a case of an editor, User:Cberlet, who believes he personally owns and/or controls the content of Chip Berlet, an article about himself in real life. In doing so he commits a violation of WP:OWN. Berlet also frequently self-cites his own material, such as in this edit to the Ludwig von Mises Institute where he adds a link to a highly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center opinion piece he authored as if it were a factual source.

As this case relates to the other editors he named, most if not all appear to have drawn Mr. Berlet's wrath by editing either his article in a way that is critical or differing with his strongly exhibited POV's on other articles. While each of these editor disputes should be analyzed individually, there is certainly no "acting in concert" between any of them and myself against Mr. Berlet. All communications I have made with any of the other editors is public on wikipedia article and user talk pages, and in the few instances I have done so with these editors, the topic was something other than Mr. Berlet. Thus, as far as I can tell, Mr. Berlet's real grievance with me is entirely drawn from the fact that he doesn't like the content I added to an article he claims as "his" own, no matter how sourced and valid that content may be.

I have participated in edits on the Chip Berlet article in the past where I made counterbalancing NPOV additions. At the time I made these additions, the article was generally positive about Mr. Berlet and largely lifted from his own self-bio on his website at Political Research Associates. Mr. Berlet is a vocal political figure who writes with a strong leftist editorial POV. To counterbalance this bias, I added sourced and documented criticism of Berlet by conservative columnist David Horowitz to the article as WP:NPOV dictates. In seeking to comply with NPOV I also added several quotes and links to Berlet's responses to Horowitz so as to ensure his side of their dispute was aired as well. Mr. Berlet immediately reacted in hostility to this addition in a talk page post he titled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (emphasis added), which called for expunging the Horowitz criticism from the text and substituting a link to Horowitz's articles on the bottom of the page. This case is one of many where Mr. Berlet has referred to the Chip Berlet article as "my page" and has tried to control its content, violating WP:OWN

Berlet made similar attempts to exercise ownership over his organization's article, Political Research Associates. In a post that alleged bias against PRA, Berlet stated "We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed". In my response to this I suggested it was generally inappropriate for PRA to attempt to exercise control over an article about itself and suggested Mr. Berlet should "add to the article—not to subtract from it" if he felt that it was imbalanced against him. Mr. Berlet then responded in a post that contained hostile venom-laced attacks on persons who had criticized him and their supporters:

• "So far we have had this page taken over by...fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• "The critics of PRA quoted include...David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right."

This same post by Berlet alsol alleged that Lyndon LaRouche activists had taken over the article, yet when I looked into this allegation I was unable to find any LaRouche edits in the article's history at least since last year if at all.

Back on Chip Berlet a dispute over the size of Horowitz material followed and the page was temporarily protected until a version of the text was agreed upon. This agreement was reached between August 9th and 14th and a neutral admin removed protection.

From that time until the present I have kept the Chip Berlet article on my watchlist. When another content dispute involving other editors emerged earlier this week around November 12th or 13th, I read through the dispute and made a grand total of four talk page contributions. Two of these proposed compromises aimed at resolving the dispute and the other two urged editors whose tempers were flaring up to assume good faith . This arbitration request by Mr. Berlet stems from the November 12th-present dispute and now alleges some sort of vast conspiracy between myself and other editors to subvert articles that he appears to think he owns since they are about him. As can be plainly seen in the edit diffs indicating my involvement in this latest dispute, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the editors who is generally supportive of Mr. Berlet - SlimVirgin - even agreed with one of the suggestions I made as a possible compromise.

In light of the above, I urge the Arbcom to reject and dismiss Cberlet's request, at least as it pertains to me, as frivolous. Should the Arbcom decide to investigate it further, I would urge them to examine the WP:OWN issue as it pertains to Mr. Berlet's behavior on articles pertaining to him in real life. Rangerdude 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Recusal Request

I would also like to request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political material as sources. Jayjg's edits and stated opinions on this subject have exhibited strong support of Mr. Berlet that could potentially compromise the fairness of this case. He should accordingly recuse himself as required by Misplaced Pages's arbitration policy. Thank you in advance for compliance. Rangerdude 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Snowspinner

I would hope that the arbcom would take this case, as it touches on a major issue we face on Misplaced Pages, which is the treatment of expert contributors. Cberlet summarizes the situation accurately - because of his opposition to several groups - most notably our friends in the LaRouche movement - he is a target for harassment and defamation. On the one hand, as we've learned in countless cases (John Byrne, the Bogdanovs), we have to be careful about letting editors dictate the content of articles about themselves. On the other, it would be a far graver mistake to allow expert contributors to be driven off through campaigns of harassment by their political enemies. Phil Sandifer

One issue that I think this case makes clear is that editing to bolster the representation of one POV is not itself a violation of NPOV - yes, Cberlet's edits unquestionably reflect his POV. But even in the example of the edits Sam cites to Political Research Associates, the edits seem to me to be good NPOV edits. In one case, after wholly rewriting the article, CBerlet also adds an NPOV tag to it, showing, to my mind, extraordinary concern for the policy. But the edits cited - removing inaccuracies, trimming quotes that just slander, but don't support any of the claims made in the article - these are good things to do. They do not magically become bad things based on the editor who does them. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

While it's important to resist the wishes of public and semi-public figures who wish to eliminate criticism of themselves, this goes beyond that and into the realm of grudges and personal attacks. Insertions of tangental and irrelevant references to Berlet in a number of articles and screens of references to "body counts" add up to a POV pusher with a grudge against this user. Gamaliel 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Spade

Here is a brief summary of Cberlet's history of aggression towards myself.

The charges Cberlet brings are of course absurd, and in my regards likely consist of nothing more than a recent thank you note from nobs on my talk page, and questions I asked here. I have no idea who User:Cognition is, for example, and have had only fleeting contact w the other named parties. It would be interesting if Cberlet or my other accusers provided evidence for their claims.

I had, however, been considering bringing a case against Cberlet for his neverending POV pushing (have a glance at his contributions sometime), but I am uncertain he is so bad as to require banning.

I will examine my evidence, and his recent contributions, with what little time I have to spare during midterms, and will comment regarding a counter-suit at another juncture.

Sam Spade 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Case against Cberlet

Cberlet is the clearest example of POV pushing I know of on the wikipedia. I intend to make this as clear as possible.

Premises:

• User:Cberlet is Chip Berlet
• Chip Berlet is notable enough for a wikipedia article
  • Chip Berlet is an a opinionated journalist
  • We know what Chip Berlet's POV is (roughly)
• Cberlet makes edits of the same POV as he expresses in his profession, sometimes even citing his POV.
• Cberlet's POV is not often notable

Examples:

• Cberlet cites himself

• Cberlet expresses his POV on his articles talk page

• Opinionated edits regarding his employer, Political Research Associates
  • , ,

While the wikipedia has many professors (or other sorts of experts on various matters) who are also editors, they are not allowed to cite themselves, by name, in the article namespace; nor express their POV therein. If someone else cites them due to their notability, that is of course allowed. They should not however become interfered in such matters.

Sam Spade 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I hope the committee will accept Cberlet's case. Chip Berlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in May 2004 by an IP address within a range known to have been used by the LaRouche accounts (Herschelkrustofsky et al), who used the page as a platform for LaRouche criticism of Chip until the second LaRouche arbcom case in January 2005. In July, Rangerdude fell out with Cberlet on other pages, opened an RfC against him on July 25, and then started editing Chip Berlet on July 28 (the first time he'd edited it), inserting criticism, which raised a potential legal problem of negative material being inserted with malice. (I'm currently having to defend myself, in the arbcom case against Rangerdude, against charges that I violated NPOV and AGF when I tried to stop him. ) Now Nobs01, who often edits with Rangerdude, is inserting that Chip was closely associated with "defender of terrorism," and has made comments that look like threats, implying that if we don't retain the material, he'll insert even worse, which again raises the issue of malice. "If you want to spend weeks discussing the Weather Underground, Philip Agee ... fine. In the end, you may wish the namespace only included 'an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism'," "The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary," and "Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented." SlimVirgin 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to Rangerdude, he has made a helpful suggestion for compromise between Nobs01 and the other editors, and hasn't backed Nobs up this time. SlimVirgin 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Herschelkrustofsky

Since February of this year, I have made no edits to Chip Berlet and a grand total of three edits to Talk:Chip Berlet: this one, where I caution other editors about the use of weasel terms; this one, where I answer a question by Willmcw about Berlet's employment at High Times magazine, and this one(with a four word follow-up question to SlimVirgin here,) regarding the use of an advertising-style promotional photo in the article.

And I have added this one today. --HK 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Consequently, I have reason to wonder what motivated Cberlet to include me in his request for arbitration. I also find it odd that Cberlet wishes to represent such a heterogenous grouping of editors as "acting in concert." Berlet cites two messages on my talk page from Nobs01, while omitting my response on Nobs' page; to put the matter in context, I have reconstituted the entire exchange here.

As regards his case more generally, I agree with Rangerdude that this falls under WP:OWN. Misplaced Pages policy protects User:Cberlet from personal attacks, but provides little protection to Chip Berlet, the public figure (an irony to be appreciated by those of us who witnessed Cberlet's repeated biting of newcomer Zirkon in discussions over the article Fair comment.) Chip Berlet is without a doubt a public figure, although if he were as prominent in his field as Snowspinner, SlimVirgin and Willmcw insist, I should think he would have no need to spend hours each day promoting himself via Misplaced Pages. User:Daniel Brandt, in his own abrasive way, attempted to argue that he should "own" the article Daniel Brandt, and met with little sympathy. Of course, Cberlet should not need to edit the article Chip Berlet, because he has SlimVirgin and Willmcw as proxies to do it for him.

In the second LaRouche arbitration case, a unanimously adopted finding of fact was that "A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Misplaced Pages; that can only be determined by the edits to Misplaced Pages." If this was intended to be a gentle warning to Chip Berlet/Cberlet, it has fallen on deaf ears. In the event that the ArbCom agrees to hear this case, I will pursue a counterclaim against Cberlet for:

• POV pushing
• Original research (much of the self-quoting that Cberlet has introduced into Misplaced Pages has never been published outside of his website)
• Exploitation of Misplaced Pages for commercial purposes
• Incessant violations of Wikiquette, including personal attacks (Sam Spade has already referenced some doozies.)

--HK 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)]

Recusal Request

I would like to second Rangerdude's request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political views as source material. --HK 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party Flcelloguy

As mentioned above, a mediation was requested between Cberlet and Nobs01 by Cberlet on September 27 and began shortly thereafter. As a member of the Mediation Committee, I was assigned to the case, which involved several articles relating to the VENONA project. Mediation has been ongoing ever since and was only suspended today by myself because of this Arbitration case. I only bring up the mediation because it is mentioned by the plaintiff above, and also because the mediation involves the plaintiff and one of the defendants (Nobs01). The matters that we discussed at mediation only related to the VENONA project article; thus, the issues are at best tangentially related to the issues brought up in this Arbitration case. However, it is clear that Cberlet and Nobs01 stand on different sides of the river and that both are in dispute with each other more than just at the articles that mediation covered.

The mediation is on Misplaced Pages and is available at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01 and its corresponding subpages. I will be more than happy to detail the mediation more clearly or to clarify any questions that Arbitrators may have regarding this mediation on request.

Thanks very much. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Nobs01

I believe there is a long trail of User:Cberlet editing in bad faith and other applicable policy violations. This is primarily a content dispute, which Cberlet has made little or no effort to use proper citations or methods, insisting upon his priveleged POV as an "expert". His opening statements here, "acting in concert", "most problematic, or "as team regarding LaRouche", are provably false, and may be another policy violation of abuse of process. The same is provable regarding his Mediation request. If necessary, the other users named here should be separated from User:Cberlet's conspiracy theory about "digging up dirt".

Let me also add, I have always acted in a manner that separates Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet, acting in the capacity of a fellow Wikipedian, from the Chip Berlet Wiki article.

However this case proceeds, before it concludes, we shall document that Mr. Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, was singled out by an authority widely recognized as the "foremost analyst of left and right wing extremism" in America, as one of four of the most extremist organizations purporting to be a "Watchdog group". This may be helpful to Misplaced Pages, given the overreliance on Mr. Berlet as an inhouse "expert", which may have created NPOV distortions in several articles. nobs 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Grand total of 3 edits lifetime were content was added to Chip Berlet, ; 20 edits total lifetime since 13:23 3 August 2005 as follows: 4 rv; 11 fmt, notes, cites, or further reading; 1 wikify; 1 img. Given the above claim "Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry... Nobs01 having the most problematic" please mark as Exhibit 1 of abuse of process nobs 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 2 Abuse of process Cberlet's most recent breach of good faith.

• 9 August

• nobs posts: "Notice: As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution on other pages, I will be abstaining from further input in this article or other articles directly relating Mr. Chip Berlet (until such a time as suspension of abstention etc.)"

• 19 October
  • Cberlet raises in Mediation,
    • "Whether or not the Category:Soviet spies is accurately named"

• note: this was agreed to earlier as part of Mediation as well.

• 7 November
  • Cberlet solicits assistance at WikiIN-1 to list Category:Soviet spies at CfD since "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter" . nobs 02:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 3 Abuse of process (Abuse of process = false statements) Cberlet lists 2 diffs above to support claim of "work as team regarding LaRouche", and "acting in concert"; this is the only contact with this User I've ever had in Misplaced Pages, and he didn't even vote at the CfD . My second posting to him was a response to his objection on my Talk page .

Please see, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties", pgs. 114-131 for analysis of the "pathology" of using "links and ties". nobs 04:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 4 Abuse of process Allegations have been made here and elesewhere user:nobs was "digging up dirt" to "denigrate" User:Cberlet; when the time comes, nobs will be able to document, through Misplaced Pages diffs the material came into nobs hands quite accidentally (with the help of User:Ruy Lopez, no less) on a completely different subject unrelated to the Chip Berlet article. When the material did come into nobs hands, nobs request Cberlet in September to respond to it, twice. Acting in good faith, nobs spent the time to fully qualify the source of the information, and the nature of the issues raised. Nobs01 never set about with the intent to "dig up dirt". nobs 04:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• How User:Ruy Lopez found Laird Wilcox Report.
  • "Google shows the words "magdoff", "kant" and "venona" appear on exactly four web pages ("hiss", "ales" and "venona" appear on over 700). One of these pages is Nobs01's Misplaced Pages entry, so it's really three entries. One is from a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source. One is from some far-right red-under-every-bed author, who basically accuses pretty much every known figure on the left, whether communist or not, of being a Soviet spy - Alger Hiss, Harry Magdoff, Harry Dexter White, even IF Stone for God's sake. The other is a memo referring to the original Venona message"
    • "far-right red-under-every-bed author", i.e. John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division
    • "memo referring to the original Venona message" cryptome
    • "a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source", i.e. Volksfront publishing Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999. nobs 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 5 Abuse of process Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Dispute resolution states,

users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages

• 31 July
  • 20:43
    • nobs posts on Cberlet's talk page "Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page"; Cberlet continues blistering personal attacks elsewhere.
  • 20:45
    • "I have no interest in a side conversation."

• 3 August

• "Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to."

Hence, it was at User:Cberlet's insistance the material at Talk:Chip Berlet be dealt with publicly. nobs 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Based on Nobs01's edits to Talk:Chip Berlet
• Accept Jayjg 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, JPLogan, others

Case by FT2

Article

Neuro-linguistic programming (Talk)

Involved parties

Users concerned (Note: new suspected sock-puppets get added regularly)

The five main users discussed in this RFArb:

• HeadleyDown (talk | contribs)
• JPLogan (talk | contribs)
• DaveRight (talk | contribs), also apparently edited as D.Right (talk | contribs)
• AliceDeGrey (talk | contribs)
• Bookmain (talk | contribs)

Additional suspected accounts, sock-puppets or cronies (primarily NLP talk page):

• AMaulden (talk | contribs)
• HansAntel (talk | contribs)
• JaseC (talk | contribs)

Not all of these accounts are causing problems to an equal degree as others. Roughly the above list is in order from most actual damage to date, to least. The first 5 at least have each been persistently disruptive through to vandalistic since first visiting.

Brief summary of case

The neuro-linguistic programming ("NLP") article has been damaged by aggressive POV warrioring. The named accounts (including sockpuppets, meatpuppets and cronies) are all one-use accounts, created within the same short time period. Their appearance here is connected to vandalism, disruption and POV warfare by User:HeadleyDown, in combination with a message posted on the Yahoo skeptics-forum in September encouraging forum users to visit the Misplaced Pages NLP article. The users, acting in broad concert , have been engaging in a common behavior of extreme POV warfare, vandalism, sock-puppeteering, and ongoing breach of policy on that article ever since. Despite RfC and mediation, a large number of explanations by various users of WP:NPOV and other policies, and a second attempt at mediation purely focussing upon NPOV aspects of the matter, the behavior remains constant. Several explicit warnings were given of referral to Arbcom (example), combined with courteous requests to comply with key WP policies despite personal attacks and lack of civility to other editors. These measures failing and the problems continuing unabated, bona fide wikipedians working on this article voted 7-0 that mediation is fruitless, and to approach ArbCom for a ban on editing on the subject of NLP and its associated articles by the above and by their associated cronies.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified, both by general notice on the article's talk page DIFF and individually: HeadleyDown, JPLogan, DaveRight, D.Right, Bookmain, AliceDeGrey, AMaulden, JaseC, HansAntel

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The article and its editors have run the gamut of reasonable discussion.

The Neuro-linguistic programming article has been through discussion, dispute, RfC (linguistics) Sept 14, and 5 weeks of mediation. I asked for mediation a second time specifically with HedleyDown (Oct 30). A formal talk page vote was finally held (Nov. 3) and editors agreed 7-0 that mediation should be deemed unlikely to be fruitful and the matter passed to ArbCom for a ruling.

Statement by FT2

The Neuro-linguistic programming article, which has for the most part been well run in a civil manner in the past, has been disrupted principally by users HeadleyDown, JPLogan, but also with POV degradation, personal attacks and/or remarks by others such as User:DaveRight, Bookmain and AliceDeGrey. There is now strong suspicion that most if not all of the named users may be sock puppets, due to similarities in their editing and histories. Having run the gamut of reasonable discussion, other contributors to the page in question voted to request arbitration.

None of the users named have made any any significant contribution to any topic other than this one topic and other NLP-related articles (with the exception of DaveRight on Neurofeedback and Speed reading). In some instances they have continued their POV approach on NLP to the detriment of other pages too. In essense, they have acted as POV warriors with a single viewpoint who have proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and have little interest in anything beyond their own view. (eg, see: Psychopablum created by JPLogan). Fundamentally they do not seem to show the slightest ability or care for collaborating in a wiki manner. Indeed their idea of collaboration is insults and ignoring or dismissal of issues, often with personal attacks and remarks. Since apparently joining Misplaced Pages at similar times (HeadleyDown Aug 2005, JPLogan and AliceDeGrey Sept 2005, DaveRight Oct 2005, etc), all have done virtually no other editing except POV degradation on the NLP article and/or negative talk page comments to its existing editors.

Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that an appropriate ban from Misplaced Pages NLP editing is appropriate, and this is what is requested.

Examples of POV warring (DIFF examples of each given in the ArbCom vote on the article talk page)

• POV suppression
• 3RR breach reported Oct 26
• Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, often followed by addition of more POV material.
• Personal attacks (including assumption of bad faith).
• Ignoring of requests to discuss edits
• Citation of fraudulent credentials of renown ascribed to an author to back up a slanted source (a web opinion presented as scientific "research")
• Falsely representing the opinion of professional bodies or ignoring their actual opinions as stated on their own website (which had been pointed out multiple times).
• Defamatory personal attacks, eg JPLogan's NLP talk page comment "I'm sure someone will find a citation for it... Wanna make some money out of NLP?" in response to removal of a highly critical and unsourced personally written opinion.

These and other examples can be found as DIFFs in the Arbitration vote.

Arbitration vote and DIFF citations at

Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Arbitration.

Other action before Arbitration vote

• Prior to the vote, a formal request was posted to the mediator's talk page for an opinion whether he felt the mediation process was able to resolve the issue.
• I and others also warned HeadleyDown and others on multiple occasions that co-editors' patience was running out, and that he needed to respect NPOV policy, as numerous other editors had also stated. I told him explicitly on three occasions that his present type of conduct would be unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, and would ultimately lead to an Arbitration Committee referral to prevent him editing the article. His reply was initially to agree to renewed mediation, but almost immediately to revert to personal remarks and increased POV attack.

Article vote on ArbCom referral (Nov 3)

Users voting for ArbCom referral (with support for statement that mediation is unlikely to be fruitful):

1. FT2
2. Comaze
3. Lee1
4. FuelWagon
5. GregA (originally posted as User:203.217.56.137)
6. User:PatrickMerlevede
7. User:Justin Anderson (also posting as 211.27.105.9)

User indicating strong support but not voting due to short time of editing:

1. Faxx: "If the history of this discussion has demonstrated anything, it's the pointlessness of trying to engage Headleydown and his ridiculous sock-puppets in a constructive dialogue. lets just get to arbitration a.s.a.p .... FT2 has already moved for arbitration not long ago. There were votes although I did not participate due to not really participating in the editing. I've just been reading the endlesly recycling discussion. Nothing will get done this way. HeadleyDown obviously has nothing better to do with his time than pursue his crusade." and

Users voting against arbitration:

1. None, other than comments by the users concerned.

Mediator's comments:

1. Following the Arbcom vote, the mediator commented that he felt it was neither efficient nor necessary.
2. Two days later the mediator added: "Note: to Headley et al, just because I am mediating here does not mean that I have the final say...."

Example events since arbitration vote

Despite the semblence of continuing mediation,

• HeadleyDown deleted the Arbcom vote post, in "revenge" for his reply being moved (unchanged) to the marked comments section below.
• HeadleyDown deleted two of Justin Anderson's comments from the Talk page.
• 3RR broken on at least two further separate occasions preventing balancing material being added, or slanted writing being corrected. (example: 15:02 Nov 7 16:38 Nov 7 17:51 Nov 7 01:10 Nov 8)
• Multiple personal remarks and attacks
• The article has had further core factual material removed
• Related articles to NLP have also begun being degraded; when it was noted that some specialised material was being moved to side-articles, HeadleyDown's response was: "Hi FT2. Presently the NLP modelling page is full of hype and exagerated claims. I wonder why you didn't notice:) That will change soon enough. Regards HeadleyDown"
• Talk page posts explaining and discussing edits, with the intent of promoting mutual collaboration, continue to be bluntly ignored. (eg: )
• The definitions of the subject, cited from its founders' websites and standard texts, was deleted complete with citations, by JPLogan.
• An attempt to balance an apparent misrepresentation of an author was followed by ignoring the request to discuss on talk page, and deletion of the balancing quote and addition of more POV citations. This left the introduction with 3 selectively represented views showing a view that NLP was pseudoscience and a cult, and not one of the many research and other citations showing that the opposite view is strongly supported.
• POV warfare edits continue to the present time (eg in this edit series dated Nov 15 (12 days after the article vote and 2 days after the formal RFArb posting), DaveRight adds the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" 3 times in different places and removes the {{dubious}} tag from a fourth. Following this edit, the article contains 25 mentions of the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" alone, excuding section titles.

Other information

• One editor, User:TBP, was explicitly self-identified as a sock puppet on his talk page before becoming involved in this article Oct 17 DIFF. He played no part in the vote or its discussion, and only a minor role in the talk page debate, mostly between Oct 27-29.
• I have responded (#FT2_responses_to_user_statements) to the statements of the named users below, with citations. In summary, the counter-allegations (like most of the allegations in the article) are spurious and unhampered by inconvenient notions like article history or DIFFs. Examples include user:HeadleyDown calling reversion of his highly slanted post back to the mediated version, "Lots of anti NPOV activity" and "Removal of a cited fact", and allegations of "crimes". As user:FuelWagon observes, much of the editing is attempts to hold back the flood of POV warfare, which is then named "promotion" and used to justify personal attacks and remarks.

We have acted with appropriate patience and reserve, but despite much patience, many flames, and much time, there is just no sign whatsoever of any intent to change, nor any significant indication they want to change enough to participate appropriately in Misplaced Pages NLP for the foreseeable future. We therefore ask that ArbCom accept this matter for Arbitration.

FT2 10:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by HeadleyDown

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Hello mediators/arbitrators. This is interesting. I simply want to say that arbitration is an extremely long way off, and our helpful mediator VoiceOfAll seems to concur with that. Mediation seems to be working well. Each time the NLP promoters (I call them that because a lot of them have a vested interest) remove lots of cited fact, the mediator steps in and they calm down. When the more neutral (sorry, less proNLPers) compromise (usually a lot in favour of NLP) the proNLPers calm down some more. I have to admit it does get very tedious to have to restore censored facts all the time, and have to keep answering the same questions all the time (badgering), so things do get a little heated at times. It doesn't help that nearly all non-proNLPers have been labeled sockpuppets at some time. But things are moving forward now the mediator has helped out. Actually there are often major moves in the direction away from arbitration. I personally am fairly ok with the idea of arbitration, but it seems a bit silly to do so when mediation is starting to work so well with a level head and an good and increasing understanding of the subject. Anyway, its all up to you. Regards HeadleyDown 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

(the following diffs were inserted by HeadleyDown into FT2's statement area. Moved by FuelWagon into HeadleyDown's own area. FuelWagon 22:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

Hello Arbitrators. For the sake of helping with examining behaviour, here is some evidence of one so-called unbiased editor from the FT2 camp. Actually he is one of the milder examples compared to others such as FT2 or Comaze:

FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledgeHeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Showing both a complete lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to research, and a desire to delete facts that are even presented within NLP books. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

the same research-shy ignorance. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings). HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, this is me being mild. There are far worse cases to come. RegardsHeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some of FT2’s crimes:

FT2 Removing a cited fact that was a view of psychotherapists. Removing a concluding statement from the paragraph in favour of a small section of an argument in the middle of the paragraph of an academic paper. Again, selective editing without adding the conclusion of the paragraph, and removing more cited fact. Lots of anti NPOV activity. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 adding as much hype in one go as possible. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

again FT2 removing properly cited facts. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2’s masterpiece of selective editing. The end of the paragraph actually states – But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated. This is FT2’s biggest trick. He likes to take the middle parts of arguments(the positive bits) and cut off the negative conclusion. No other researcher has ever quoted FT2’s section. All other people who quote Sharpley do so using -NLP failed, or is unsupported etc. From a research perspective it is intellectually fraudulent, clear selective editing, biased in the extreme, and grossly misleading. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Here FT2 writes: “It is worth noting that NLP has been criticised for being both ineffective, and for being too effective (ie used for mind control and manipulation). This contradiction has not yet been resolved.” This is FT2’s view. It is also the view of some vandals who claimed the same thing prior to FT2’s appearance. I am willing to overlook that, but the fact is; FT2 is willing to write his own opinion on the article even though he claims to have had lots of experience on Misplaced Pages. The view is not the view of any other author. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many more similar breaches of cooperation, good research and policy that FT2 continues to commit and of course you can judge them as you wish. Regards HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(The following text was added, again to FT2's statement area, after FT2's response/rebuttal of the above)

OK Arbitrators, I wrote the above but I regret it. It is all too shrill. Forget that I said the above. The whole arbitration episode is quite ridiculous. Arbitrators should not have to look around all the content stuff. The fact is, to my knowledge, nobody has done any recent sockpuppetry, there have been no particular offenses (including people calling me a stupid wanker) and the mediator is doing fine (a lot better than I expected). The situation is thus: NLP breeds a lot of followers, and they don't like the fact that science says NLP does not work. It makes them feel really down. They try to remove the fact using every NLP method they can. Misplaced Pages is a lot more reasonable than that. Facts get removed, and the fact-minded place them back in the article. Devotees keep removing them or demanding more facts and so more facts get placed on the article. They continue to remove the facts as they look more and more depressing to devotees, and they call the mediators, or the arbitrators. They hope that by some miracle they can remove the facts by removing the scientists. Do what you will and try to make the devotees a little less censorious. Otherwise, I am fairly content to restore scientific facts as they are presented by scientists. Best regards HeadleyDown 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by JPLogan JPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to check my behaviour. You will find that I am no sockpuppet, although accusations abound. I really feel that the proNLP editors have just shot themselves in the foot again. Certainly I have held back on posting the more damning evidence against NLP, and I have posted plenty of remarks and solutions to solve problems. I suggest that arbitrators keep a due sense of humour. Certainly I find the whole thing ridiculous. The NLP promoters have gone against NPOV so many times. Anyway, do your best with all the checking. CheersJPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party user:FuelWagon re: NLP

I became involved in the NLP article in October. I hadn't heard of "Neuro Linguistic Programming" until I found the article, and I have no personal bias for or against the topic. But it is clear to me that the article is in clear violation of NPOV. There appear to be a number of editors with proclaimed biases against NLP who are editing the article in violation of NPOV. Someone with a longer history of the article can present more evidence, but here are a few diffs that show some blatant biases that directly affect the article.

06:58, 23 September 2005 HeadleyDown modifies the first sentence of the introduction to say "(NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification technique", where the term "quasi-spiritual" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

02:52, 25 October 2005 JPLogan modifies the first sentence of the entire NLP article to say "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development", where the term "pseudoscientific" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

03:24, 1 November 2005 DaveRight reverts with the edit summary "I think that deserves some punishment." (violation of WP:Point)

03:39, 3 November 2005 DaveRight does a blanket revert of a number of edits, reinserting a bunch of text including "Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience." as well as "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST" Both sentences present as fact what is actualy disputed opinions of NLP, namely calling NLP "wish fullfillment", "pseudoscience", "amoral", and "psychocult" (Violation of WP:NPOV)

17:13, 12 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes a critic of NLP's opinion from the criticism section ("Jan Damen describes NLP as occult"), rewords it to passive tense so the source (Jan Damen) is not mentioned and the opinion is presented more as fact, and then reinserts it into the pro-NLP section, making it look as if a pro-NLP source describes NLP as "occult". (Violation of WP:NPOV)

01:23, 16 November 2005 HeadleyDown again reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is used for "occult" purposes, where "occult" is POV, biased, and disputed.

03:35, 16 November 2005 DaveRight reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is "fringe", where the term "fringe" is POV, biased, and disputed.

01:55, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is used for "fringe therapy", "psychic activities", "covert seduction", and the "occult".

02:33, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST"

(update) Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it?" Here are some diffs that I've dug up showing about a dozen attempts by me to correct NPOV violations committed by another editor by rewriting them to follow policy. I believe most of these attempts by me were reverted by other editors on the page.

edit summary: "Jan Damen describes NLP as occult" edit summary "Reporting the various points of view as being stated by their sources, rather than stateing them as fact." Edit summary: "I'm rewriting the intro so that all POV statements are reported as someone's point of view, rather than reported as a "fact" followed by (name).)" edit summary: "Attribute pro-NLP information to advocates and supporters." edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.)" edit summary "report the NLP point of view in NLP words," edit summary "intro describes the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. URL's to verify." edit summary "attributing to Dilts" edit summary "another source" edit summary "source" edit summary "introduce NLP using the words of NLP supporters. provide URL's so other's can verify accuracy."

(update) HeadleyDown provided a number of diffs that he claims are POV violatios on my part. I've included them below with my own interpretation on what each diff shows.

These diffs were posted by HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) the format of each diff is

explanation by HeadleyDown.

my explanation in indented format

FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledge

"quick fix or lay therapy, NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices." completely unsourced, unverifiable.

Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s.

The disputed content is "The foundation for Bandler and Grinder's NLP is based in" followed by "spirituality" or "New Age". The block quote provided in the article immediately below this assertion never uses the phrase "New Age", but mentions that NLP is based on spirituality. I change the content to match what the sourced quote supports.

Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc.

I've provided a dozen diffs that show a dozen attempts by me to rephrase POV statements into NPOV statements. They have all been reverted. This diff shows a POV statement that I deleted. I am not required to "re-phrase" every NPOV violation made by HeadleyDown et al. I've tried and they revert it. Deleting a POV statement is not violation of policy. And a dozen attempts by me to "re-phrase" their pov statements should be sufficient to show good-faith efforts by me to try and work with these editors.

FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno.

"pseudoscience" is POV, and in this diff, the word is unsourced, reported as fact, violating NPOV.

removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience.

The content says NLP has also been identified by the ] as quintessential ]ry (Parker 1999). {{dubious}}. It was marked with a "dubious" tag and given how inflamatory a statement it is, I deleted it saying that it required some means to verify it. My edit summary ends with "please provide a URL for verification."

The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views.

This is an example of me "re-phrasing" POV statements into NPOV statements. I report the views as being stated by the sources who hold them. HeadleyDown then says that these sources are not the only people who have these views. The only problem is that HeadleyDown never provided any verifiable sources to support his claim, except to say that it is "common knowledge".

This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories.

Edit summary says "This is criticism and belongs in the criticism section of intro, with plenty of sources to support use of such biased words". And HeadleyDown found a website selling witchcraft training tapes that said it used NLP techniques. That is like saying since abortion bomber Eric Rudolph is christian, then the introduction to the Christianity article should say that christianity is promoted by people who bomb abortion clinics. As far as I know, the poeple who developed NLP do not associate themselves or NLP with occult practices.

Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact.

Edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.". I report how the NLP Seminars Group International defines NLP and provide a URL. This is not a violation of policy. HeadleyDown wants to define NLP using the words of critics of NLP only. I inserted other points of view.

It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults.

Edit summary: "Dianetics and Landmark Forum is off topic.". ANd it's impossible to tell if the Council Against Health Fraud mentions Dianetics and Landmark, or if "Loma" mentions them, or if HeadleyDown inserted them on his own. Unsourced and unclear assertion.

Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship.

POV wording "NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult (Smith)" needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult". I've done this a dozen times. it keeps getting reverted, so I deleted this one.

FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings).

Edit summary says it all "report the NLP point of view in NLP words, not simply criticize NLP." HeadleyDown refuses to allow pro-NLP sources to have their point of view reported in the article, and insists on reporting only the views that are critical of NLP.

Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature

HeadleyDown needs to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". I've done it a dozen times and got reverted.

Allow me to chip in DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am not DRight:) I am Dave. OK. No idea who DRight is, but he has a cool name:) OK. For what its worth, you may want to look at the Scientology and Dianetics article page. Similar things seem to have gone on there. NLP is one of those pseudoscience subjects that recruits lots of believers who love to hear about "human potential, metaprograms, the difference that makes the difference, the science and technology of excellence" and so on. In fact, they have had all those things on the article at some point. It is interesting though, how often they advocate and even physically remove cited scientific fact. FT2 for example, keeps wanting to remove fact. He also posts his own opinion within the article even when there is absolutely no author who holds the same opinion. He posts strategically altered paragraphs (with the negative ending removed) in order to promote NLP. The fact is, NLP is a pseudoscience, according to scientists, psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists. In fact it is in the same category as Dianetics and EST and sometimes phrenology. The NLP promotional team are dead set on removing facts as they have physically done for months, and they have even tried to recruit vandals from newsgroups. Things do get a bit lively on the discussion page, though the only direct insults have been to poor old Headley. NLP promoter's call him things such as "dullard" and "wanker". No such activity has been seen from neutral editors towards proNLPers, dispite the ridiculous level of fact deletion. There is a general slur campaign against anyone who does not promote NLP. To my knowledge, no negative comment or insults or vandalism has been conducted from neutral editors to the NLPpromoter's pages. Anyway, go ahead and check my ip and tell the NLPpromoters to stop removing scientific facts. ATB Dave DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party Voice of All

While I don't believe that arbitration is the best option for now, I would say that the placement of ((test3)) and ((test4)) signs, accuations of extreme POV, and use of alternate names is likely occuring on both sides here. An IP check on all of the users would be well appretiated, as duplicates can be banned, leaving only the true users. This will removed inflated edit wars and vote tallies/consensus.

I would note however, that I had already recommended that people edit one section at a time. The blanket reverts were mainly of edits to multiple sections. One the other hand, too much anti-NLP criticism has been going into the article recently, under the idea that it is a fact or he did actually say this; article's can not have every single fact about the topic, they must be streamlined, and some sort of balance between truth and representation of all POVs must be reached.Voice of All 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution