Revision as of 06:30, 1 December 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute

Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 10:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• RoslynSKP notified
• Jim Sweeney notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Improper_use_of_rollback

Statement by TomStar81

• On an unrelated note here, I've never started one of these, so if I screwed something up please feel free to fix it, or drop me a line and I'll get to it myself.

At the request of the Coordinators of the Military history Project, we filing for an arbitration request concerning two of our editors (User:RoslynSKP, or rskp for short, and User:Jim Sweeney) who have been engaged in a long and barely contained cold war across multiple articles on or related to the military history of the Ottoman Empire / Turkey. This comes as a last resort for us, but it has reached a point where the coordinators - and particularly those within the coordinator circle who hold admin rights - are of the mind that sanctions need to be imposed on the editor(s) or articles in question so that we can bring the full force of our admin tools to bear against the problematic editors for the sake of peaceful editing for the rest of the members of the project. You will here more form the parties involved and the two editors in question in the coming hours, I'm sure, but for now a brief finding of fact as it relates to the articles will uncover the following information pertain to this request:

1)This has been an ongoing problem for months (maybe even years, as the earliest edits from RoslynSKP date to June 2010) and in each case the rskp seems to find consensus building difficult. Attempts to engage this editor in discussion geared toward finding consensus have been largely unsuccessful do to an apparent narcissistic personality from rskp that steers a discussion into a 'playing the victim' type talk whereby rskp appears to be uninterested in having their errors pointed out but more interested in seeing parties privvy to the discussion punished/censored/sanctioned for all manner of different things. I'll note for the record that after a 3rd party left a comment on the ANI thread this position relaxed somewhat, allowing us to reach a white peace, but if this is to be a repeat of the ANI thread from last month then I expect the behavior will likely return.

2)The edits and reverts in the articles in question have a tendency to go up to, but not over, 3rr limits, which frustrates admins and milhist coordinators attempting to protect the material. Short of fully protecting the articles involved in this ongoing editorial cold war, the lack of justifiable grounds for admin intervention leaves these two editors free to have at each other and anyone else unfortunate to involve themselves in the articles in question. As both an admin and a coordinator, I can attest to the fact that it is frustrating not to be able to do anything to stop such an endless cold war. If nothing else, we would like the committee to take the case so as to impose sanctions (such as topic bans or a 1rr ruling) that we can enforce to preserve the peace of the articles in question.

3)Long term attempts to solve the problems through other avenues have proven to have largely fruitless, due to the fact rskp appears to cherry pick bits and pieces from policy and guidelines pages to defend or justify actions taken in the articles and shrugs off efforts to find and implement consensus.

This request is being filed in the aftermath of the most recent appearance of both Jim Sweeney and rskp at WP:ANI, where I managed to hammer out a white peace between the two for a limited amount of time while the project sorted through the issue of the usage of the terms Ottoman Empire and Turkey (see the ANI thread above for that discussion). In the aftermath of the ANI thread we gained consensus for interchangeability in one article, which we can use to justify an either/or approach across the greater whole of the articles, but in order to better implement that the Military history Project coordinators and administrators must - repeat MUST - have some level of stricter sanctions for the articles or editors (or both) in question so this implementation go forward with the established consensus with more than simply bluff and guile such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@AGK: I am a recent addition to this train, so I am not in the best position to bring out additional evidence - short of going through a lot of archived talk page material. I can say for a fact though that the ANI thread I posted above contains multiple links to articles and comments from editors more familiar with this than I, and if you like I could go through those to see if any could be used as evidence. In addition, as this is a fairly recent post, there is a chance that additional editors and the involved parties will bring more evidence to the table. If nothing of this nature happens in 24 hours I will look for the requested material, but I would need a little understanding from the arbitration committee and the clerks since finding more material when I have been involved for so long could take some time. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jim Sweeney

I first became aware of RoslynSKP, in November 2011, after a post at WPMILHIST asked for more opinions over a dispute at Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul. Reading that talk page is a good example of the problems ever since. Refusing to accept a community decision/consensus, tagging articles, where a decision had gone against their own opinion. They have what can only be described as severe ownership problems with any article associated with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, even those created and edited by others. See Talk:Raid on Nekhl#Misplaced Pages: Disruptive Editing where adding a couple of words and a Wikilink is called disruptive. See Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Arbitrary_break where a consensus to use Turkish over Ottoman was reached. RoslynSKP then almost immediately started changing Turkish to Ottoman in other articles, see Talk:Charge at Huj, Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade for examples. With the edit summery the consensus ONLY mentions the Anzac Mounted Division there is no remit to apply that odd agreement to any other articles In other words if we want to use Turkish in other articles we have to get a consensus for each. Another example of their failure to accept consensus over several articles but the discussion was centralised at Talk:Battle of Sharon see sections Talk:Battle of Sharon#Populations living on the battlefields, Talk:Battle of Sharon#Consensus, Talk:Battle of Sharon#Populations living on the battlefields redux, Talk:Battle of Sharon#"Populations living on the battlefield". Unfortunately RoslynSKP has chosen to edit in an area where they have very little knowledge outside of a few select books. The vast majority of those being almost 100 years old use old or out of date terms and they are unwilling to accept that other editors/authors may have different views on a subject. So any attempt by myself (in the main) or others to change names/terms is met with obstruction. I always remember a comment RoslynSKP made re their conduct, I believe it was at WPMILHIST, was that best form of defence is attack and that in a nutshell is RoslynSKP WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to any dispute. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MarcusBritish

What we have here is a historical set of long-term disputes, regularly instigated by User:RoslynSKP against members of WP:Military History, often involving User:Jim Sweeney, over inter-related articles, many within the past two years. Although these examples appear old, they are relevant because the issue has never gone away, there is always something being disputed within the WWI topic, usually regarding ANZAC or Ottoman issues, and so this is not an isolated incident that can be written-off as stale. NB: I have not gone beyond 2-years although RoslynSKP has been a member since May 2009 and there are likely to be further similar cases of note. I have linked to examples of disputes, but you may find more better examples of poor conduct via the edit summaries of the articles.

In addition to the current dispute regarding "Turkish" vs "Ottoman" usage, I should like to present a timeline of example disputes pulled directly from MilHist archives, and the relating articles involved. I should like you to direct yourself not only towards the context of the disputes, as they all generally related to WWI articles, but to the attitudes and responses shown by RoslynSKP. You will find sufficient evidence here of WP:SOUP, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:GAMING, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DIVA and so forth to highlight the major disruptions to contend here, most of which are WP:POINTY and show a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK even towards a consensus. The editor habitually raises concerns over articles with a one-track closed-mind, is unable to accept other editors' views, is quick to judge and accuse others of having POV-issues, and chastises MilHist members for "taking sides" with others. It is this prevalent set of attitudes which persists to this day, and the current issue is plagued with the same tiresome attitudes which serve only to exhaust everyone involved to the point the dispute simply fizzles out, allowing RoslynSKP to continue to make the edits they wanted all along – I believe this is by design and WP:CPUSH may apply when this occurs. Lately, we have witnessed a great number of reverts placed by RoslynSKP and I had to issue a number of WP:3RR notices, as this behaviour is now no longer isolated to one article every so often, but several at one. The current situation involves Charge at Huj, 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, ANZAC Mounted Division and Desert Mounted Corps, with RoslynSKP disputing the same matters simultaneously across all these pages, applying up to three reverts per day on some, and rejecting the recent consensus at MilHist by instead choosing to apply what appears to have been a temporary agreement made at ANI between two parties, but not an over-whelming community consensus. Cherry-picking of dispute outcomes is also in RoslynSKP's nature, often favouring and interpreting the one which best suits their means, similar to WP:Stonewalling tactics.

I cannot help but feel that when you account for all the reverts, tagging and manipulative discussions, RoslynSKP simply take articles "hostage" in an attempt to force an outcome in their favour before they will unlock their grip on the page. RoslynSKP usually claims that anything contrary to their opinion is a "POV issue" regardless of other editors advising otherwise, this has lead to disruptive edit warring just over the placement of "POV" tags and refusal to remove them unless the articles meet RoslynSKP's personal expectations, regardless of what sources are presented that oppose them. This amounts to nothing more than abuse of the maintenance tag system in order to game the system and influence other editors' to concede. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be reprimanded and prevented; over 2 years evidence of these subtle abuses can be provided – I consider it out of ANI's reach and a serious matter for ArbCom to neutralise, because the bigger picture is more serious than first meets the eye.

The recent ANI matter was a perfect example of WP:SOUP, and how quickly RoslynSKP attempts to whittle down opposition through pretentious chastising remarks, dubious accusations, and other forms of self-interest such as "playing the victim" via long-winded circular arguments. We have witnessed this behaviour on the MilHist talk page so often it has become frustrating; no one wants to get involved in the same confrontation every few weeks, because it seldom reaches a mutually agreeable solution, or when it does it's short-lived.

I did recommend a RFC/U, but it's a weak system for someone like RoslynSKP on the grounds that a) they may choose to ignore the RFC and by not partaking it becomes a one-sided set of accusations which biases any outcome and prevents it from reaching a fair conclusion; b) RFC/U is non-binding and CANNOT "impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" – which may only result in yet another lengthy dispute with RoslynSKP and no formal sanctions. At this stage we really do need a 1RR/0RR limitation applied, requirement to respect MilHist consensus', non-use of maintenance tags, as well any other restrictions on page moves, interactions, etc necessary to maintain the peace. Given the number of guidelines and policies being swept aside here, with possible violations of the WP:5P, we need more formal scrutiny of the situation. MilHist is proving powerless to prevent these ongoing disruptions, its coords are accused of bias or favouritism, its admins feel too "involved" to block the editor. In general, RoslynSKP makes a simple smack on the hand feel like a trip to the moon, and is unwilling to accept any fault in their behaviour, views or disruptions. Their lack of respect for community and consensus shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE as a team-player, as there are far too many ownership issues involved to make this matter easy for ANI or RFC to handle without also being subject to detrimental rebukes. As ArbCom is more immune to being influenced by gaming due to strict procedures placed to keep matters such as this from going off on a tangent and disappearing into the archives to be forgotten. MilHist desperately needs ArbCom to review this case and draw the line, so that these matters can be finally closed, with a strict set of restrictions placed on the editor/s in question, as this would make it easier for blocks to be imposed without having to sit through the long tedium of bitter exchanges as seen in these examples. If an editor with this history cannot demonstrate good faith willingly they either need banning for a year with restrictions on their return, or encouraging via strict sanctions on their editing for as long as necessary until they prove themselves capable of functioning more sociably.

Non-exhaustive examples of historic and ongoing disputes

• MilHist talk dispute (September 2013)
  • Related article dispute

• MilHist talk dispute (December 2012)

• MilHist talk dispute (February 2012)
  • Related template dispute 1
  • Related template dispute 2
  • Taken to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

• MilHist talk dispute (December 2011)
  • Related article dispute 1
  • Related article dispute 2
  • Related article dispute 3
    • Note: "Where there has been substance or value in their edits I have welcomed their contributions. But where there is no substance or value, I have not and will not." – Rskp (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — a self-confessed WP:OWNERSHIP attitude still present in RoslynSKP's editing and worsened by a complete lack of admin intervention over the years. Complacency has allowed this editor to spiral out of control and consider themselves above everyone else, only a higher authority can knock them off that high horse because they appear to show disdain for coords, admins and anyone not willing to share their views.
  • Taken to ANB/3RR User:RoslynSKP reported – Result: article fully protected
  • Related article dispute 4
  • Related article dispute 5
  • Related article dispute 6
  • Related article dispute 7

• Article dispute (January 2012)

• MilHist talk dispute (November 2011)
  • Related article dispute 1
  • Related article dispute 2
  • Related article dispute 3
  • Related article dispute 4

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to reiterate that RoslynSKP registered in May 2009, made their first edit in June 2010, and that my earliest example dates from November 2011. It does not take over 17 months (June 2010 – November 2011) to "learn the ropes". As evidence, I should like to point to WikiChecker for RoslynSKP which shows that by November 2011 RoslynSKP had made as many as 5,800+ edits, and to date has 23,000+ edits, a total of ~8,000 more than my own 15,400+ since my first edit in February 2011. I'm sure that if I can "learn the ropes" in almost 3-years, RoslynSKP can certainly learn them in almost 4-years. This is not a feasible excuse, it is just an example of RoslynSKP's attempts to garner sympathy through "pity me" and "I was new" victim-styled remarks. If RoslynSKP was "only new" when they were arguing about "POV" issues and placing maintenance tags back in 2011, I should like to know what their excuse is now, 2 years later, because they are employing the exact same tactics and arguing over the exact same issues in most cases! RoslynSKP either has a low learning curve or is simply unwilling to conform to Wiki policy and understand when consensus is against them. Resorting to excuses like this is what causes ANI and other DRN mediation to fail, ArbCom should be more objective and prepared to overlook such excuses and look at the evidence available, not be harassed with sob-stories. Ma®©usBritish 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Would RoslynSKP care to explain what my "interest" is then, instead of making ambiguous statements which contain no facts pertaining to the case against them? Ma®©usBritish 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Just another excellent Wiki-tool here which compares edits made by MarcusBritish and RoslynSKP and proves that I don't actually edit WWI articles often, and the very few matching articles I have made edits to are normally copy-edits or on their talk page single WWI article I also edited only involved copy edits. The others are talk page contribs, usually in response to these ongoing disputes as a third-party. As it appears to me that RoslynSKP's last comment was a subtle but typical attempt to suggest I have an "ulterior motive", I shall pre-emptively respond to that with evidence that I have no interest in your ANZACs or your Ottomans whatsoever. My "interest" purely relates to settling this matter, and freeing up MilHist from your disruptions once and for all. If you want to dig through all 15,400+ of my edits, feel free, you won't find many of WWI relevance. Ma®©usBritish 02:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RoslynSKP

I began editing the Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles in June 2010. On 2 November 2010 Takabeg edited the Battle of Romani changing Turkey to Ottoman Empire here . I told Takabeg about this dispute here . At the time I had no idea that it was indeed the Ottoman Empire which had been the adversary to the British Empire. From that time I have tried to consistently apply Ottoman Empire instead of Turkey for two reasons. Firstly, because it was indeed the Ottoman Empire, albeit the last years, which fought in WWI. And secondly, I think it was Erickson, who notes the Ottoman Army was made up of units from the different provinces which made up the Ottoman Empire. However the english language literature has not so far not identified where particular units came from and "Turkish" does not encompass these provinces.

There has been a long running discussion regarding the use of the term "Turkey" in articles about World War I at Talk:Anzac Mounted Division which has spilled over into the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history here and to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators here .

This dispute arose after 28 October 2013, when AustralianRupert suggested a note which claims the "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" are synonymous. It is this note that has been employed to justify changing "Ottoman Empire" to "Turkey." So far this note has been used in three articles to change "Ottoman Empire" to "Turkey." They are, Anzac Mounted Division which was operational between 1916 and 1919, the Charge at Huj article, and in the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade despite my protests and an edit war. The efficacy of this note has been questioned here

I have argued that, while a MILHIST consensus agreed to the use of "Turkey" based on its common usage in english language publications, that consensus only related to the Anzac Mounted Division article, and should not be applied to any other articles. Also POV tags have been added in the hope that they might raise editors' awareness, to the non-neutral point of view that imposing "Turkey," (which was only part of the Ottoman Empire), arguing that it would be like changing the British Empire to England, but so far no one appears to appreciate the logic of this argument. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note this is not a long running dispute. It began on 28 October 2013 with AustralianRupert's suggestion for the note. MarcusBritish has added a series of unrelated links to a diverse group of disputes, many of which date back to my early days on Misplaced Pages, when I was still learning the ropes. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be another side to MarcusBritish' interest in this dispute. --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback report, Edit War etc.

On 29 October 2013 I reported an Improper use of rollback to Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard here archived here which resulted in snarking then a wrap over the knuckles, followed by impinging my reputation on 30.10.13 here

The number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA which I have been associated with prove that I can and do collaborate with Misplaced Pages editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me.

Then User:RoslynSKP reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: ) on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring here was linked back by Anotherclown to the rollback. ‬

The edit war occurred when Jim Sweeney fought me for the citations to the first para of the intro begun when I added sources to substantiate Anzac Mounted Division form of the name of the division here . This continued while full citations were fought over including here and here for all the variations of the name were removed here The Edit warring shows a result that it was transferred to ‪Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‬ on 6.11.13 but it never made it.

The slippery slope ...

1. Terminology problem here brought to
2. MILHIST discussion here
3. "They voted to remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division as MILHIST discussion favoured colloquial term
4. despite the POV issue of the 5th Mounted Brigade being consistently in full while the light horse and mounted rifles units are inconsistently abbreviated. not being addressed. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by GregJackP

I recommend that the committee decline the request. This is first and foremost a content dispute that has not availed itself of all possible solutions before coming here. ArbCom is a last resort, a final appeal for issues which cannot be solved in any other way, only here, the other methods have not be attempted yet (with the exception of ANI).

I'm not involved in any of the articles involved. GregJackP Boomer! 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Peacemaker67

I disagree with GregJackP. This request is here because the disputation is like a running sore and the infection appears to be spreading to articles right across WWI in the Middle East, to the detriment of content creation, reviewing, the MILHIST project and WP as a whole. It is no mere content dispute, but an issue of highly disruptive editing, ownership, deafness, gaming and battlegrounding. ArbCom is here to sanction editors by way of giving them a disincentive for continuing widespread and disruptive behaviour. No other resolution seems at all likely to have the desired effect. ANI has been tried already, and there have been many discussions about this issue within the MILHIST project, both on article talk and the general MILHIST and coordinator MILHIST talk pages. Despite MILHIST consensus on an issue, Roslyn immediately starts up the same issue at another article, claims it is a different issue because it is a different article, thereby demonstrating she doesn't respect consensus, which is a critical aspect of WP. It is an intractable problem and needs attention from a group of experienced but uninvolved arbitrators who can properly examine the evidence, draw conclusions and wield a stick on behalf of the community. That is why it is here, and why I believe it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D

I agree with the comments made by Peacemaker67 above (I am also one of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, and made an unsuccessful attempt to resolve an earlier iteration of this dispute either last year or in 2011). This has been a long-running problem, and has escalated sharply in recent months. Attempts to resolve the issues through discussions on various article and project talk pages have not been successful, and discussions at ANI and AN have not lead to any admin being willing to step up and try to sort out the issue (possibly as it's seen as being too long-running for any single admin to handle, especially as the obvious solutions would involve topic and/or interaction bans which admins can't impose unilaterally).

While a RfC/U would be helpful in setting out the issues and judging the weight of opinion on RoslynSKP's conduct, I don't think that it would lead to a resolution as, based on their recent history, RoslynSKP isn't taking the opposition to their actions seriously and keeps re-opening the same tired debates and causing the same disruption. RoslynSKP's recent somewhat over-blown complaint about the use of rollback at AN (for which Jim was correctly warned by an admin) is particularly concerning as this appears to have been an attempt to "win" a content dispute they'd lost through use of administrative actions targeting their opponent rather than by building or accepting consensus. His or her statement above is also concerning as it indicates that they still haven't acknowledged that the concerns raised by other editors are over their conduct rather than content, or that they accept the results of previous discussions of the relevant content.

As such, I think that ArbCom is probably now the best placed organisation to handle this matter, though I don't think that it is particularly complex: IMO it boils down to RoslynSKP against the world, and I note that the editors he or she has been arguing with for months are among the most respected and civil around. If a very experienced admin wanted to wade into this and devote a lot of time to the matter they could possibly resolve it, but at this point what should be a straightforward Arbitration case is probably the most practical and fairest way forward. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/1/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements from the two primary disputants. @TomStar81: this request is perfectly formatted so, in answer to your opening line, you needn't think you messed anything up in that respect.. However, I expect there are many more links to be provided under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Could you compile a sample of links to prior discussions between the two primary disputants that illustrates the problem? We need these links in order to review the background to the dispute, and to ascertain that the last resort of arbitration is actually necessary. AGK 11:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill  12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not clear on why in this discussion it is decided not to go ahead with the suggested RfC/U, and to "Skip ANI". If there is clear consensus that RoslynSKP's behaviour is inappropriate then the community can and should be dealing with this - the community can impose a mutual interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney, and to impose 1RR on either or both editors. Given the good content work both editors do, I don't think anything stronger than that would be beneficial to the project, nor appropriate for the low level (even if tiresome) disruption. Perhaps a restriction on move requests as well. Anyway, unless there is a convincing reason why community procedures should be avoided, and the matter should come straight to ArbCom, I would be inclined to decline. SilkTork 14:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also awaiting statements from the main parties, but on my initial skim I see a longstanding set of disputes with no end in sight, so absent some other suggestion for how this gets resolved sooner rather than later, am leaning toward accepting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept As a long-running dispute with no other real resolution on the horizon. Courcelles 01:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept tentatively. While I see SilkTork's point about the opportunity for community action, the reality is that RFC/Us have never been shown to have any real impact when the behaviour is entrenched liked this. This situation seems to be well-suited to some form of very abbreviated case, with short deadlines, e.g., one week for evidence, one week interregnum, posted decision. Risker (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors

Initiated by The Cap'n (talk) at 19:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Vzaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lou Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Vzaak
• User:Barney the barney barney
• User:TheRedPenOfDoom
• User:Iantresman
• User:Alfonzo Green
• User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV
• User:Barleybannocks
• User:David in DC
• User:74.192.84.101
• User:Lou Sander
• User:Philosophyfellow
• User:Mangoe
• User:Liz

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_is_a_BLP_mess
• For_those_who_wish_to_waste_their_time_in_an_RfC_that_will_lead_to_no_actionable_consensus.29
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Consensus_by_exhaustion_at_Rupert_Sheldrake
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Alfonzo_Green
• Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Did_Another_Editor_Get_Blocked.2FBanned_On_This_Cursed_Page.3F
• Tumbleman AE
• Additional threads showing efforts to resolve (or otherwise dispose of) this matter are listed here.

Statement by Askahrc

I apologize for the lengthy statement, I was unable to explain this complex problem in 500 words.

This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats and bullying of certain editors working on the Rupert Sheldrake page. There have been a disproportionate number of threatened and actual blocks/bans for this WP:BLP, with a particularly disproportionate number of these threats and all the bans focused on those who oppose the dominant opinion. This opinion has been to reject nearly any edit that references Sheldrake's credentials or work in a legitimate fashion, reverting most efforts and only relenting once it is impossible to resist progress without appearing abusively biased. Numerous reverts are carried out in sequence by a few editors, while a single revert attempt by an editor disagreeing with them was undone in minutes and that editor warned that any further action would be considered WP:EDITWARRING. Editors who are otherwise known to be balanced or even skeptics are called pseudoscientists, Sheldrake-fans or other, more pejorative terms if they argue that the Sheldrake page is not NPOV.

This has been justified by claiming that WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE requires extraordinary evidence from any editors who are trying to cite what the proponent of the fringe theory argues (NOT presenting the fringe theory as fact), but ordinary evidence from those who denounce it. When editors have argued with this unequal burden of proof their attempts at mediation receive a flurry of WP:WIKILAWYER statements denouncing their request for aid and their intelligence, then the WP:RFC or other appeal is . When editors refuse to back down from the peer pressure, threats begin appearing on the Sheldrake talk page or on the user's talk pages, warning them that if they continue editing pseudoscience articles (ie. Rupert Sheldrake) they may face blocking or banning. The threats vary in justification and tone, but share a common purpose of silencing debate on the page; the more in-depth threats include Iantresman, Alfonzo Green, Lou Sander and others.

Until recently only the so-called pro-Sheldrake editors received these threats, and the editors banned through the course of this articles work have all been those who insisted that either WP:FRINGE does not mandate an unequal burden of proof or otherwise disagreed with the negative bias on the page. Regardless of the guilt of the blocked editors, it is important to note that they were singled out specifically because they contributed on the Sheldrake page, but none were clearly shown to be disrupting the article, edit-warring or maliciously trolling the page. This is important because it is indicative of an effort to find an excuse to block dissenting opinion, regardless of whether it's disruptive. An example of this is the practice of accusing people of sockpuppetry, which editors have noted tends to elicit a swift reaction from admins. Thus Tumbleman, Oh boy chicken again, Philosophyfellow, Shaynekori and others had bans pursued with or without Checkuser reports confirming sockpuppetry based on the fact that they were editing the Sheldrake page for similar reasons. Oh boy chicken again was even confirmed as an unlikely sockpuppet but the ban was still pursued. Whether or not User:Tumbleman had a case against him, his full name, business information and personal info were distributed against his will as retribution for persisting on the Sheldrake page, leading to antagonism outside WP. That is unacceptable behavior and not just poor WP form, but cyber bullying. There is evidence for these points should the arbitration proceed.

We need to find a way to curtail the disproportionate number of AN/I warnings, blocking threats, social pressuring and unfair burden of proof enforced by a group of editors who are crushing dissent on this page. I'm familiar with and respect the editors in question, this is not an attack on them but an attempt to shift a culture that is deteriorating quality editing and giving good editors bad habits. The atmosphere has become so hostile and combative that many editors on both sides have become disillusioned with trying to improve the Sheldrake page. That said, the article itself is slowly coming together and is not the subject of this arbitration request, but rather the conduct surrounding the page that is indicative of a culture of intolerance and bullying that is gathering public attention and is detrimental to Misplaced Pages.

I am hoping for an intervention that will directly recognize the equality of reliable sources when reporting on (rather than arguing for) a fringe subject, a higher standard of evidence before blocks or bans are levied against editors here and, if at all possible, an investigation into the prevalence of bullying minority-opinion editors with frivolous threats.

Statement by User:David in DC

I've disengaged from particpating in editing this article. I make a statement here only to explain why. I'll not particpate further.

The persistent edit warring

• to keep the word scientist, biologist or biochemist out of the first sentence of the lede of a Biography of a Living Person who is called a biologist, biochemist or scientist in multiple Reliable Sources and who holds a biochemistry Ph.D. from Cambridge,
• to keep the word hypothesis or theory out of the article of a Living Fringe Theorist who's been proposing a Fringe Theory or hypothesis, for 30 years, noted in multiple Reliable Sources, and
• to bully, harrass and derogate the WP:COMPETENCE of any editor who edits the article as I did, guided by the view that there is a tension between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE when editing about the Living Fringe Theorist that does not exist when dealing only with his Fringe Theories,

simply grew too aggravating to bear.

No sane reader could be misled into believing morphic resonance is anything but waaaaay out on the fringe by an article that used the words the sources do. The theory is amply contextualized by all of the prose that is included in the lede and in the text of the article. The warring and bullying to enforce blacklisting the words, no matter how reliably sourced, and to derogate the living person who is the subject of this bio, is a blot on wikipedia.

The fringe-fighters have, no doubt, noble motives and a jaundiced view --- hard-won in years of battle with the acolytes of woo-meisters --- of any editing that seems to them to diminish their important work of keeping Misplaced Pages from legitimizing nonsense. But it has led to a binary, toggle-switch, on/off approach to editing about anything FRINGE-related.

That's an approach especially ill-suited to editing BLPs. Here it has led to stubborn, tenaciously incivil treatment of equally nobly-motivated editors who try to police BLPs, and characterization of them as indistiguishible from SPA FRINGE-supporters.

I do not deny that there are such FRINGE-supporters about. I do not share the concern expressed above about the blocking of The Tumbleman and his SOCKS. But I deeply resent being lumped in with them. I finally concluded that there were other ways to help build up this project, and that continuing to try to correct the incorrigible was a fool's errand.

I urge the Arbitration Committee to revisit the issue of Psuedoscience on Misplaced Pages, at least insofar as it relates to living people. The Sheldrake article and the last few months of sturm und drang over it provide an excellent opportunity. Please don't waste it by saying "we dealt with this in 2010." The 2010 decision has proven inadequate to guiding editors of this article. It's similarly inadequate for guidance in editing other articles of living people who advocate odd ideas. David in DC (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The wording of the request is itself needlessly inflammatory. I do not think this is a matter for ArbCom. Decisions have been made, some people don't like them, this will be fixed before the WP:DEADLINE.

The problem here is that the article covers two subjects: it is a biography of Rupert Sheldrake, but it is also a document of his advocacy of a pet theory that has no credible basis in fact.

If the theory did not exist, it is unlikely that Sheldrake would be notable. He is known almost exclusively for his crank theory.

Misplaced Pages cannot cover his theory - in reality merely a conjecture as it does not meet the scientific definition of a theory - without noting that it is comprehensively rejected by the scientific community. Needless to say Sheldrake does not like this.

Sheldrake has clearly attempted to encourage people to edit his article in support of his views. The pro-Sheldrake editors make much of WP:BLP, though most of what they object to seems to me to be entirely compliant.

There are probably some anti-Sheldrake editors. There are also a number of people whose main concern is with maintaining a proper factual article, ad as usual in any dispute of this kind they are regarded as members of the opposing camp by both extremes. This hampers resolution.

A few people have, I believe, allowed justifiable concern for the subject to overrule their normal good sense to a degree, but I do not think they have done anything deserving of sanction. I count David in DC ins this group, but he is sufficiently self-aware that he seems to recognise the issue. If everyone were as sanguine, we would have no problem.

The input of the peanut gallery has been unhelpful.

In the end, any article fully compliant with Misplaced Pages policy will accurately reflect the idea that Sheldrake is known primarily as an advocate of his nonsensical ideas of morphic resonance, which have virtually no currency outside his own work, and as a result it will be hated by Sheldrake, who will no doubt continue to agitate about it, perfectly understandably.

Under the circumstances the best we can hope for is an article that will be seen as fair by a dispassionate observer. I am not convinced that the pro-Sheldrake activists are prepared to accept such an article, and I believe this is why the burden of sanctions has fallen disproportionately on them. It is probably true to say that they care more about this particular article than any given Wikipedian whose interest lies in fringe science: to us, Sheldrake is a pretty insignificant figure whose ideas are, in truth, not especially important compared with, say, a prominent climate denier or alt-med activist. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander illustrates the point. Scientifically, conservation of energy is a fact. I guess people are probably familiar with Einstein's views on thermodynamics, a field which Sheldrake also insists is mere dogma:

A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.

— Albert Einstein

The pro-Sheldrake posse argue that because Sheldrake says that these are dogmas, it is reasonable to portray them as such. Meanwhile, back in the real world, no observation has ever been recorded in the entire history of science that refutes or even calls into question the laws of thermodynamics or conservation of energy.

Even then, they are wrong about why science takes these things as fact. They are taken as fact because that is what observation supports. If you conduct experiments to test whether energy is conserved or entropy increases in a closed system, you always find that it is. If you think you found it isn't, then you go back and try again and find that you made an error in our experiment. If someone came along tomorrow and found conditions that violate these laws, they would have made a real discovery - but they would need solid reproducible facts to back them up.

It's worth remembering why Einstein's theory of relativity deposed classical Newtonian mechanics: it's because it made predictions that Newtonian mechanics could not account for, that were supported by observation, by a highly skeptical audience.

Sheldrake does not have facts to back up his assertions about the laws of physics. His reason for disputing them has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that his empirically unverifiable pet conjecture is refuted by the laws of physics. He wants them to be wrong so he can be right. That's not science, that genuinely is dogma.

So this is a simple case of WP:TRUTH. Misplaced Pages reflects the facts as they are currently understood, not as article subjects wish them to be. We document the fact that Sheldrake disputes conservation of energy and thermodynamics, but we do so in a way that makes it plain that his opinion is not supported by evidence. Exactly as we do with people who dispute much less firmly established scientific facts such as evolution and climate change. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Looie496

The article is already subject to discretionary sanctions via WP:ARBPS. Unless ArbCom wants to micromanage the article, intervention would probably not be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Lou Sander

I think Askahrc has done a good job in stating the problem. It is bullying. The bullies spare no effort in demeaning the competence or good faith of editors with whom they disagree, not to mention demeaning the subject of the article. Along with the bullying, there is a considerable ownership problem with the article.

I think David in DC has stated things very well. Like him, I have drawn back from this article and its talk page. I still regularly monitor both of them, but I rarely make edits to either. Because I have drawn back, and because I prefer not to be bullied, I haven't supplied any diffs or examples of the bullying referred to above.

I don't agree that there are "pro-Sheldrake" editors active in the article. Specifically, I don't think there are any editors who give credibility to the hypothesis (or idea, or notion) of morphic resonance. There are some editors, and I include myself in that group, whose main interest in the article is in seeing that it is a fair representation of Sheldrake's work and of the reaction to it by the world.

Besides his notion of morphic resonance, Sheldrake is notable for challenging what he calls the assumptions of science. This work is, as far as I can tell, far less "on the fringe" than the morphic stuff. Yet bullying editors demean it (and Sheldrake) along with everything else. For example, they say that it goes against the "fact" of Conservation of energy. COE is actually a Law of science, or a Principle -- something that is very well-established within certain limits. Few outside the editors of this article would call it a "fact," yet it stays in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Butler

As with David in DC and for much the same reasons, I have stopped editing the Sheldrake article. I have also stopped editing in general for the same reasons. The Sheldrake article is just the latest and most painful. For me, the number of times I was personally attacked during the Electronic Voice Phenomena battle is a red letter for Misplaced Pages. Also see comments such as this comment, and this arbitration enforcement discussion this arbitration enforcement discussion

It is important to read the complain rather than once again assuming there is a conspiracy to sidetrack Misplaced Pages rules in the Sheldrake article. The complaint is about bullying and something of a cry for help moderating bullying in the Sheldrake article, and for me, other articles as well, as it is a Misplaced Pages-wide problem. In fact, I have not been so personally attacked in Misplaced Pages as I have been when I looked for help with personal attacks on a wiki:civility page. There have also been many public attacks since I am amongst the few editors with the courage to use my real name.

Most of the so-called fringe editors know they are outnumbered and have the good sense to seek balanced treatment of so-called fringe articles. From my perspective as a "fringe" editor, there is no such desire for balance expressed by the skeptical editors. It is either their hard line mainstream treatment of new ideas to make them be seen as clearly untrue or edit warring--no compromise, no consensus possible. Being outnumbered, the minority editors either give up and go away or eventually get banned. There really is no in-between.

I had personal experience with this in the days Scienceapologist was still active and it has not gotten better. Even today, I can make a modest edit in one of the "fringe" articles and expect several of his friends to show up to counter me.

Misplaced Pages is gaining a public reputation of being a harsh environment for editors. That poisoned water atmosphere warns off potentially good editors and drives others away, leaving only the hardliners. If that is what is wanted here, fine. We are so warned, but be aware that funding for the servers is directly related to public opinion. If there is ever a tipping point where the directors must begin selecting what to save and what not to save because of lack of funding, be sure to look back to complaints like this as fair warning. I for one do not want to see the value offered by all of those mainstream articles lost because you all can't find a way to reasonably accommodate new thought. Tom Butler (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

More - This is what I mean: "I'm only monitoring that article and its talk page these days. Too much bad behavior over there. Maybe bad behavior is the norm where pseudoscience comes up. That's not good for Misplaced Pages." Reading the comments below by the arbitrators, I see that they believe everything is fine and Wiki rules are enough. In fact, the atmosphere is poisoned in the Sheldrake article as it has been in similar ones. Everything is not fine when editors representing half of the discussion go away because of the abuse and refusal to compromise by the other half. Tom Butler (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I filed an apparently pointless AE request on the mistaken belief that there was some hope of getting something done about the relentless hammering on this article. The subject of that request backed down anyway and there was no more to do on that line.

As far as the "bullying" is concerned: I have done almost no editing on this article, and intend to keep it that way. But even a the most cursory of readings shows that Sheldrake's ideas are far outside accepted science. Nevertheless there is a constant stream of new and not-so-new editors especially pushing the notion that there is some degree of experimental validation of his notions, and that they have some support from other scientists. As far as I can tell these claims are defended by misrepresentations in the first case and undue emphasis on some very tentative support by one retired fellow in what comes across as an an appeal to Clarke's First Law. The article is thus being subjected to a kind of proof through exhaustion in which the sanctions of the pseudoscience ARBCOM decision are proving utterly ineffective. I am unsurprised that defenders of the orthodox position are behaving badly, because the effort needed to prevent the article from being taken over by Sheldrake's supporters is way beyond reason. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Barney the barney barney

I think that ‎JzG (talk · contribs), who has had little involvement in this article, yet merely as a bystander has hit the issue on the head.

The use of the word "bullying" in the title is disingenuous. This is a dispute mostly concerned about wording and content. It is not a school playground. I like Mangoe (talk · contribs) think that topic bans are in order, especially for the WP:SPAs and those who have similar existing and related topic bans.

There is already WP:ARB/PS; any decision should be consistent with previous precedent on this issue.

This is clearly a fringe issue. A few editors have tried to argue it's not, claiming "it's philosophical", but this is just poor quality Wikilawyering to try to get out of WP:FRINGE.

The wording dispute focuses mostly on the lead paragraph, because I guess that's what most people read first. Within that, what should we primarily label Dr Sheldrake? A "biologist" which implies scientist, which implies a person who follow the scientific method, when it is quite clear that a great deal of expert opinion thinks he isn't following the scientific method. This is the position taken by his fans, but is clearly not WP:NPOV, or actually factual. Nor does it highlight what he's notable for, which is writing and promoting new age ant anti-scientific books.

The other thing that these fans are trying to do is to try to claim that the description of the criticism in the lead isn't accurate, or is based on "synthesis" of sources. This involves a bit more Wikilawyering, combined with either stupidity, incompetence, or outright lies which deny a source says what it does in fact say.

Finally, the Sheldrake's fans have tried to argue that the sources that are anti-Sheldrake are individual scientists and not speaking on behalf of the wider scientific community, and should therefore be weaselled to "a few scientists" or "some scientists". Yet as I have demonstrated, the vast majority of the scientific community just ignores Sheldrake, because he's not scientifically relevant. He doesn't publish in scientific journals and he's not cited by his peers. The few sources with scientific background who support Sheldrake tend to go for the "he just might be onto something, we need more research" line, which is more supportive of free inquiry than it is of Sheldrake, and also tend to be related to the crazier end of left-wing environmentalism. It is clear that the sources are speaking as professional scientists on behalf of the wider scientific community.

I have tried to include positive sources in the article, and found and included small number, which ironically is more than his supports have done.

I also anticipate that most of his fans would also like to gut most of the article itself, but for now they are working for small victories in the most visible part of the article. For that reason, I think David in DC (talk · contribs) is right - anyone reading the entire article should not gain the wrong impression - but wrong insofar as we should not compromise on WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and this is a slippery slope and his fans would like to do a much much more to subvert WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in a way that is very anti-Misplaced Pages and very anti-consensus. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman

It seems like I am the next target. I have just been reported at WP:AN "Sheldrake"(permalink) by JzG, where it appears he can read my mind, knows what I believe, and can predict the outcome of my discussions on the article in question. Not one diff in support. He is also not the first editor to "check" whether I could be banned for daring to be involved in this discussion, see "Barney objections"(permalink)

The problem as I see it, is two-fold

1. It is not whether Sheldrake is right or wrong (that's a content issue), nor whether such subjects foster a negative editing environment, it's that admins turn a blind eye to the behviour of certain editors, and are not very tolerant to others.
2. And the elephant in the room is that WP:ARB/PS is broken, because it assumes there is something called "obvious pseudoscience". Editors think they know where the line is drawn (I know it when I see it, contrary to WP:SYNTH), whereas the "demarcation problem" tells us that not even science knows. --Iantresman (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Your comment on "titles of case requests should be worded neutrally." is interesting. When I started the original WP:ARB/PS on 2 Oct 2006, I carefully worded the title of the case as "Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism" reflecting both sides of the issue. But when the case was opened on 12 Oct, it was no longer about "Pseudoskepticism" the term having been removed from the name of the case, and it became (in my opinion) somewhat one-sided. --Iantresman (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/5/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• The filling party requests an arbitration case in order to suppress the hostile, punitive atmosphere he perceives there to be around the article in question. It seems he may not be aware that arbitration inevitably creates such an atmosphere; it is Misplaced Pages's most abrasive process and frequently wrecks any chance for there to be a healthy, working relationship between affected editors. If the editors of this article are not working well together, bring in more editors (use a request for comment or formal mediation) and deal with misconduct decisively and promptly (use discretionary sanctions, as I explain below).

  The committee has already ruled on how editors should contribute to pseudoscience articles. The contributors affected by this arbitration request should carefully review our Pseudoscience decision in order to understand how we expect them to behave. In terms of the specific article, Rupert Sheldrake, the community has ample experience in writing a balanced biography about somebody with beliefs such as the subject's; it is unnecessary for the committee to adjudicate this dispute. Editors who are unable to contribute in a constructive way, and particularly editors who fail to obtain or respect policy-driven consensus for edits about the subject's beliefs, can be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement (AE) or by any administrator under the Pseudoscience standard discretionary sanctions. Decline and remand to usual enforcement mechanisms. AGK 11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Decline. The article is already under ArbCom Sanctions, so if a user or group of users are seriously misbehaving then the matter can be raised at WP:AE, and the user or users can be sanctioned as appropriate. If agreement cannot be reached at AE, then the matter can be brought before the Committee. SilkTork 14:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Decline and refer to AE. Salvio 14:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE and the Pseudoscience case prohibit our reporting unsupported pseudoscience or fringe science as if it enjoyed wide acceptance. WP:BLP prohibits misusing the biographies of people with unconventional views as a locus for gratuitously disparaging them, as opposed to reporting with due weight the scholarly criticism of their views. This article needs to be edited with both of these points in mind. I'll await further statements but at this point I am sure not sure that an arbitration case would help here. (Also, the titles of case requests should be worded neutrally.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as I don't see anything here that AE can't handle. Courcelles 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. It's pretty clear that despite the best efforts of a lot of administrators and editors from across the spectrum of the project, the arbitration enforcement provisions aren't working terribly well here, nor are the discretionary sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Am undecided here at present. If this is a case of an article being poorly managed by editors and administrators, with those editors who are trying to provide a fresh perspective being driven away by being labelled WP:FRINGE supporters, that is a cause for concern (that has happened in the past in such topic areas). Equally, if the BLP concerns Newyorkbrad mentions are being ignored, that is also a cause for concern. But if there is a posse of SPAs consistently advocating for a certain POV on this article, that also needs looking at. Am leaning towards acceptance, but before deciding I would like to hear from those named in this request who have not commented so far. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)