Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision

message: ===Editing on David S. Touretzky===
Note that AI has not only attempted to include disparaging material in the article itself, there is also AI's user subpage User:AI/Touretzky quotes with potentially libelous "quotes" attributed to David S. Touretzky. The quotes were rejected from the article namespace, and I find their continued existence in user space highly problematic. --MarkSweep 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume MarkSweep is not a lawyer. Regardless, he is employing his own original research to claim the Touretzky quotes are "potentially libelous." MarkSweep tried to VfD my Touretzky quote page and the VfD was strongly opposed by almost everyone who voted.--AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed findings of fact

message: Note that AI has not only attempted to include disparaging material in the article itself, there is also AI's user subpage User:AI/Touretzky quotes with potentially libelous "quotes" attributed to David S. Touretzky. The quotes were rejected from the article namespace, and I find their continued existence in user space highly problematic. --MarkSweep 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume MarkSweep is not a lawyer. Regardless, he is employing his own original research to claim the Touretzky quotes are "potentially libelous." MarkSweep tried to VfD my Touretzky quote page and the VfD was strongly opposed by almost everyone who voted.--AI 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing on [[David S. Touretzky]]

message: I think AI has demonstrated that he intends to operate in a curious letter-of-the-law fashion (mixed with his own interpretation). We should therefore make sure that the proposed remedy and enforcement are unambiguously clear. At the moment, it's not fully clear to me (but that could just be me) whether AI would be allowed to do the following:
* remove/refactor/edit his own comments in a way that removes context for any responses to his comments that may already exist at the time of the refactoring;
* remove other users's comments on his user talk page;
* alter other user's comments when he copies them to their talk page as part of a reply.
Note that I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be allowed to do these things, just asking that they be addressed. Also, I don't want this to turn into open season for AI-baiting. --MarkSweep 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed remedies

message: I think this is a very blunt instrument. Certainly an effective one, but I'm not sure it's the best remedy regarding the core goal of writing an encyclopedia. AI brings special expertise to the table, which would be welcome IF (big if) he could somehow learn to respect the opinions of other editors. Other users have shown great patience with him, trying to educate him on issues of NPOV, reliable sources, etc.  AI needs to learn to take those people seriously, and not threaten, attack, manipulate, censor them, filibuster, etc.  The whole thing about valuing the letter of policy more highly than the consensus opinions of his fellow editors has to stop.  Wikipedia works by building consensus, not by outmaneuvering one's perceived opponents.  If AI is prohibited from editing certain articles, but the above traits of his behavior are not addressed, it is possible that he may continue along the same lines on a different set of articles, or continue some of his tactics for taking over and directing the flow of conversations on CoS article talk pages (I'm assuming the proposed remedy would allow him to post comments on talk pages). --MarkSweep 06:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AI prohibited from CoS articles

message: What would you suggest as a finding of fact (would be helpful if you accompanied your suggestions with cites of evidence) and what would you suggest as remedies? Fred Bauder 00:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with the proposed findings of fact, but would add something along the following lines. As a proposed principle: Wikipedia works by building consensus. As a proposed finding of fact: AI has edited without regard for consensus. This proposed finding of fact is already partly supported by two existing proposed findings, namely (3) and (4). I'll elaborate:
:#Regarding refactoring (3), AI removed NicholasTurnbull's comments a total of nine times over the objections of five different editors as detailed here. Three of these deletions occurred after he had already been temporarily blocked under the 3 Revert Rule (for reverts that deleted the same comments). He only stopped when he was close to violating 3RR a second time. The fact that he was being reverted and/or asked to stop by five different editors should have told him that he was going against the will of the community.
:#Regarding the edits to David S. Touretzky (4), the POV edits are only part of the problem. A single POV edit would not be a problem; the problem is that he kept adding biased quotes and/or summaries of the contents of those quotes repeatedly after their inclusion had already been discussed on Talk:David S. Touretzky#Kaplan quotes) and rejected. His actions met with the objections of four different editors: Kelly Martin, MarkSweep, JesseW (see also here), and Povmec.  Again, AI did not respect the readily apparent consensus of the community.
:#Third, in a recent close call, AI proposed the partial removal of another user's talk page comments: "I am going to remove this personal attack upon me. If anyone objects, state your opinion and reason why this statement should remain. Note: your opinion will be used as evidence in the my arbitration." (I don't find the veiled threat in this request acceptable. Moreover, I don't think the burden of proof is on the person objecting, but rather on the person proposing the removal. But I digress.) I state my objection. AI is not satisfied, solicits further input coupled with more threats. Kelly Martin objects as well. AI's response is to cite WP:NPA and to declare: "I will use the policy/guideline and specifically ignore any further comments you have about personal comments/attacks whether you address me here or my talk page." While AI has so far not yet removed the "offending" comments, his actions on the talk page are deeply disturbing: he solicits input from the community, and when that doesn't go in the direction he wants, he again attempts to hide behind policy and simply ignore the opinions of other editors.
:These three incidents (and these are in no way isolated incidents) all show a common tendency: AI does not respect the consensus of the community.
:I'm not sure what an appropriate remedy would be. A revert parole might work, but AI might change his tactics to a slow war of attrition instead of frequent reverts. Clearly the ideal remedy would be one that on the one hand would encourage him to suspend controversial edits and discuss changes, and on the other hand would force him to stop once a rough consensus has been reached, no matter whether he agrees with that consensus or not. --MarkSweep 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, I do not respect the systemicly biased false consensus of a minority of the community who specialize on focusing on certain articles. Do you have any more opinions about me Mark? --AI 03:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you suggest?

message: It didn't take much effort to make this decision to quit. Bye. --AI 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still available for discussion at my discretion only (discussion here is acceptable to me but not any communication from MarkSweep to me.  MarkSweep is the one who filed this RfArb "against" me).  I am not going to contribute any content any further until some problems with the "Wikipedia system" are resolved. For starters, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Article talk pages --AI 06:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not back, I have not contributed to any content since my "return." In my opinion this arbitration is a waste of everyone's time and I will not follow any recommendations based on biased evaluation. However, I will file a RfArb as my last contribution once this one is complete, after that I will support Wikipedia's competitors and those who seek to destroy Wikipedia. --AI 03:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the very fact that you are posting here to mean that you have not left Wikipedia for good. You're free to file an arbitration request at a later point, but from what you're saying it seems it would be closely related to the present RfAr.  Meanwhile, your statements above are not only unhelpful, but deeply troubling. The purpose of this RfAr is to get you to understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that inflexible adherence to your interpretation of the letter of policies without regard for the opinions of your fellow editors is a recipe for disaster. In light of this, your claim that you misread or misunderstood policies is no excuse: what is problematic about your behavior is not any misunderstanding of policies, but your failure to engage in debate with other editors. One does not automatically "win" an editing dispute by correctly quoting the right policy, rather such disputes are settled by discussion among the parties and working towards consensus.  You can refer to policies that you think are applicable in such discussions, but quoting policies does not generally trump discussion. Saying, in effect, "I've already quoted policies and nothing you say can make me stop" is very, very bad.  Since you explicitly refused any input from ordinary editors in this matter, I figured you'd need to hear it from an established authority like the ArbCom (hence no RfC). Now I am shocked to learn that you "will not follow any recommendations based on biased evaluation". If that means that you intend to ignore any of the advice or remedies formulated by the ArbCom, you may soon find yourself on the way out.  Threats along the lines of "I will support [...] those who seek to destroy Wikipedia" are not helpful either; in fact, they are completely unacceptable. --MarkSweep 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I quit, Wikipedia gets no respect and I will support it's competitors 

message: :Quoted from Proposed Decision:
::"Interactions between AI and other editors are characterized by mutual disrespect, including personal attacks."
I am aware that:
*ArbCom is not required to explain their reasoning to me
*I have no power to force ArbCom to cite evidence
However, I am concerned that this statement makes a sweeping generalisation about all the editors AI has come into contact with. The cited evidence accompanying this finding of fact does not prove that either MarkSweep or NicholasTurnbull have in fact responded disrespectfully to AI. This could be a problem should the ArbCom proceed to propose remedies which prevent these parties becoming involved in disputes, which, without support, I would deem unfair.
:Rob Church 03:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, you might as well. You've already made decisions and proposals based on some sociopaths' POVs. I hope your enjoying your unpaid time at Wikipedia. Or are you one who is being paid? --AI 02:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutual Disrespect 

message: I see that  is back to editing articles related to Scientology. Are the proposed remedies in effect? -Willmcw 04:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
: I doubt it.  He busted right through 3RR on the Rick Ross article in the past week and as far as I can tell they haven't taken any special action to punish him for it. 68.3.234.219 02:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Propose a PUNISHMENT and try to enforce it... Wikipedia? --AI 02:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Status?

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism.  AI has indicated there that he is planning on disrupting Wikipedia sometime in the future.  And why has there been no final decision in this case?  Zoe 05:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes Zoe you are right.  I will do everything in my power to destroy Wikipedia (through legal lawful means of course) when the time comes.  I have my reasons.  Have fun working for free. --AI 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you fail to see why I have taken my position.  Wikipedia is responsible for my newly adopted attitude. :) Give me a good reason why Wikipedia should be spared. --AI 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can consider Wikipedia a useful member of society considering all the incompetent attitudes it contains. --AI 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My usefulness as a contributor is demonstrated by my contributions.  My "contribution" will continue regardless of the status of the AI account or any related IP blocks. --AI 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism]]

message: I, AI, have turned against Wikipedia because of Wikipedia's apparently inherent incompetence in fairly dealing with systemic bias and other major issues.  My evaluation was confirmed after a little research into this:
* "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism" by Larry Sanger: "Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out." - Larry Sanger.
* "Wikipedia Faces Growing Pains" By Daniel Terdiman: "The project has grown to such an extent that it is sometimes mentioned as an alternative to other resources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But with that growth, questions about how credible Wikipedia is, whether it can be respected by the academic community and how it might change are more important than ever. And as Wikipedia continues to expand, at about 7 percent per month, many wonder if the project can stay true to its core principles of openness and co-creation." - Daniel Terdiman
* "Wikiwatch" maintained by Matthew White: "I really don't go out my way to find bad Wikipedia articles, but sometimes that's all that Google offers me." - Matthew White
At first I tried to help by pushing for policy development and I requested assistance on a few issues. Within the Wikipedia community, there seems to be more focus on criticizing others while ignoring the problems at home. Why should a big mess made by other be cleaned up by me (who is unpaid) while Wikipedia collects donations. --AI 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why [[User:AI|AI]] has turned against Wikipedia 

message: AI's statement of intent to go against Wikipedia using "legal means" has been interpreted in one particular way while other interpretations are available. I think "legal means" should be contrasted with "illegal means", and not necessarily taken to mean filing suit in a court of law. For example, AI's recent attempts at trolling (see e.g. the contributions of  and compare  and  with )  may not violate any criminal laws (hence could be considered a legal means), but this is clearly against Wikipedia's own policies and probably also against the Acceptable Use Policy of AI's ISP. I would hate to see AI get banned over a potential misunderstanding of a single phrase. However, I also think that AI's presence on Wikipedia is no longer tolerable.  I was initially hopeful that AI would change the problematic behavior that this complaint was originally about.  Instead, AI has tried to use this as a forum for airing his unrelated grudges. AI's recent statements and activities speak for themselves and should be sufficient grounds for a ban. --MarkSweep✍ 14:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we are misinterpreting him at all. "you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes." is a legal threat. How else would he be able to even hope to destroy wikipedia by lawful means? This isn't a misunderstanding of a single phrase. This is a clear understanding of AI's true intent. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 20:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that, if AI gets banned, it isn't because of a lone ambiguous phrase. In the larger context of AI's recent statements, however, there's no room left for ambiguity. AI's statement of intent is plain enough. --MarkSweep✍ 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: MarkSweep's explanation that interpretation varies from person to person is right. Just like how Mark has his own interpretation of Wikipedia and its policies, there are other interpretations available. Anyway, Mark's petty threats of being banned are nothing compared to the non-AI-related threats lingering over Wikipedia. I would hate to see mis-treatment of AI by the "opinion leader" of a systemic bias result in AI's contribution to those dangers just because Wikipedia is too big for its britches and isn't fully aware of the systemic bias' abuse towards a once highly active and new contributor who represented a broad spectrum of POVs and voluntarily assisted in mediation in controversial articles. Wikipedia's failure to keep systemic bias in check is no longer tolerable. I was initially hopeful that Wikipedia's systemic bias would change its problematic behavior. Instead, it turns out that Wikipedia is full of hot air in regards to this and allows its content to be used as a forum for airing propaganda and lies. MarkSweep's work towards censoring facts is confirmation that Wikipedia is what I am explaining and is sufficient grounds for AI to discard Wikipedia and begin the next phase of destroying Wikipedia through legal means. It is too bad that Wikipedia allows people such as MarkSweep to abuse others as if his views are authoritative and fully representative of Wikipedia's. --AI 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AI, please remember that "it's" is only used as a contraction of "it is".  When you mean the possessive of "it", the correct way of indicating it is "its". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK --AI 01:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legal means"