Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-11 Scientology

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator and refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) on behalf of Nikitchenko (talk • contribs • count) and Stollery (talk • contribs • count) et al.

Where is the issue taking place?: Office of Special Affairs, Talk:Office of Special Affairs, User talk:Nikitchenko, User talk:Stollery, my talk page (temporarily)

Who's involved?: Nikitchenko (talk • contribs • count) - on one side, all others below opposed.; Stollery (talk • contribs • count); Vivaldi (talk • contribs • count); Wikipediatrix (talk • contribs • count); Fahrenheit451 (talk • contribs • count); Antaeus_Feldspar (talk • contribs • count) named by Nikitchenko below --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Who added this "on one side, all others below opposed." ? Note: "all others" share a critical POV of Scientology. --Nikitchenko 04:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I added it, because its true. The "all others" have all stated they oppose your edits regarding adding a disputed tag to this article. Vivaldi 10:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And I for one, do not necessarily have a "critical POV of Scientology". In fact, I feel as if I spend an inordinate amount of time defending Scientology articles from anti-Scientology vandalism! wikipediatrix 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

One side alledges that the other is pro-Scientology. One side alledges that the other is anti-Scientology. Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV.

Actually, the real problem is that Nikitchenko has thus far not stated on the discussion page what the basis for this dispute even is. If the dispute is over that sentence above, then I'd like to know how the editors of the article are supposed to know that? It appears that Nikitchenko is trying to dispute something that is a court record and easily verifiable. It is an innappropriate use of the {{dispute}} tag to use it to queston the veracity of verifiable claims. It is not the editors job to discover truth. Thus the claim currently in the article is that Scarff said on "such and such a date" that "such and such happened". That specific claim cannot be disputed, because we can prove Scarff wrote that in a court deposition. If you want to claim that Scarff is lying then you can easily do so in the article itself by citing sources that show he was lying, which is why the article immediately points out a reference that says Scarff was lying. Then let the reader make up their own minds who to trust. Vivaldi 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi is being uncivil. I have stated the basis of my dispute. He just didn't agree with my POV. Also he and those listed above repeatedly removed the dispute tag. --Nikitchenko 04:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You only said you disputed the Scarff references. You didn't say why you disputed them. You still need to provide the basis for your dispute. You can't just say you dispute something and then refuse to say why you dispute it. Vivaldi 10:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is propaganda. Scarff claims he was directed to murder someone, but it is only his claim, not fact, that "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement". The article was written as if "would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" was fact. --Nikitchenko 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't mention the above claim in your discussion on the talk page regarding the issue of the 'disputed' tag. You just said you had a dispute and then refused to provide the basis for the dispute. I have now offered a compromise to the wording that you are objecting to. I would have been happy to work this out with you on the talk page of the article as well. Would you like to comment on my compromise and if necessary provide your own proposal for substitute text? Vivaldi 10:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies I've been on a bit of a wikibreak - is this still pending or all blown over? Thanks in advance - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Glen, there appears to have been no further action, and I've heard nothing off the other parties, so I presume that it must have blown over. I'm happy to help if there still is a problem, just let me know, but we need all parties to agree to the mediation, and the format. --Wisd e n17 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from Stollery

Probably the best place to start is from the discussion (now removed) on Redvers talk page. Copy follows:

Disputes

Redvers, sorry to bother. I see you are from Esperanza. I need someone who could help with a dispute so that I won't have to go through red tape of RfC. Do you know anyone who can be fair? Some users are removing my dispute tag after I am saying their use wording is making things look like facts when all they really are is someone's claims (in a legal deposition). --Nikitchenko 17:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect this simply is not true. The part that is being reverted is your actual deletion of the claims made. The article states:

"In a deposition, Scarff alleged that OSA plotted the murder of Scientology critic Cynthia Kisser and her young daughter, but this was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement."

However your edit was:

"In a deposition, Scarff alleged that OSA plotted the murder of Scientology critic Cynthia Kisser and her young daughter, which never occured."

The statement "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is paramount and the start of the sentence clearly states it was claimed by one man in a deposition.

No less than four other editors (most admins) have reverted your changes. Hope this helps clarify. - Glen ^T _C 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion Glen, but I am seeking help from someone NOT involved in the dispute. You are part of the dispute. --Nikitchenko 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And your criticism of scientology as evidenced by Scientomogy.com demonstrates your POV. Thank you. --Nikitchenko 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Communication with Glen and the others at the Office of Special Affairs has failed because their refuse to see my POV and insist on their POV with their edits and reverts which is why I contacted you REDVERS. Thank you. --Nikitchenko 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ends

So in a nutshell, this hinges on the following statement in the article:

"Much of what is believed about the OSA comes from Garry Scarff, who made many controversial claims in his sworn deposition in Church of Scientology International vs. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz. In a deposition, Scarff alleged that OSA plotted the murder of Scientology critic Cynthia Kisser and her young daughter, but this was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement. ^[1] Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon called Scarff "a liar" and accuses him of opportunistically switching sides between Scientology and the original Cult Awareness Network. ^[2]"

Nikitchenko believes according to the above that "Some users are removing my dispute tag after I am saying their use wording is making things look like facts when all they really are is someone's claims (in a legal deposition)." However, if you inspect the talk page Nikitchenko NOT ONCE makes this claim Despite numerous requests as to why he keeps adding the tag.

We are not mind readers. Nikitchenko kept adding the tag without citing why, so, of course, it was going to be removed. Hope this clarifies, and thanks in advance for your consideration. - Glen ^T _C 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is the kind of communication that caused communication to fail before we could even discuss exactly what my dispute was. Stollery even went to REDVERS and began to try to assert his POV there. Stollery and the others, who are critics of Scientology, engage in revert wars by removing the disputed tag. And making accusations that I did not say the basis of my dispute. I DID say what my dispute was but they kept removing the tag. I don't think it is proper to simply remove a dispute tag. --Nikitchenko 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV we are asserting. You never once stated the basis for your dispute on the talk page. That is a proven fact and one you could easily disprove by providing a diff. You merely said you disputed the Scarff reference and didn't state WHY. The WHY part is the important part. That is the BASIS that you still have failed to specify. Vivaldi 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several points of dispute and we discussed most points and are even now addressing some specific. I have voiced disputes even before Vivaldi started accusing me and him removing the tag. Yet he and the other insists there is not a basis for the dispute tag. --Nikitchenko 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically the article as it was previously stated made it appear as Scarff's testimony was fact because of wording "Much of what is known" and "revelations". Using the word known implies fact and using the word revelations also implies fact. Stollery and the others are using this article to spread propaganda which claims the OSA conspired to murder someone. --Nikitchenko 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are getting somewhere. This is the first time you have even come close to stating the reasons for your disputed tag. Since you repeatedly readded the tag and failed to ever specify a reason for your dispute, you were reverted. I've changed the wording in my suggested compromise text on the talk page and I ask you to make your comments to it and if you still don't agree with it, then please propose a version of your own so that we have some idea on how you think we should best say, "Scarff claims that OSA asked him to murder Kisser." in the most NPOV way possible. Vivaldi 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is only one of the disputes raised yet Vivaldi was always removing the disputed tag. --Nikitchenko 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from Nikitchenko

These are some difficulties which I think are similar to some other disputes at so many Scientology pages. But I would like to state that my biggest problem with the other editors is their removing the dispute tag just because they disagree with the other side's dispute. In my opinion, if it is disputed, it is disputed. Communication should be done on the talk page without trolling, accusations and personal attacks to figure out exactly what the dispute is and resolve the dispute BEFORE removing the tag. These editors didn't allow that process. They remove the dispute tag first and then argue and then you have other editors coming to support their POV and some even starts to make personal attacks. --Nikitchenko 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?: Personally, I just want the two of them not to argue on my talk page! ;) However, I suspect that a calm, reasonable discussion leading to them agreeing a form of words that is factual and NPOV is what is required. - REDVERS

I don't want the article to be propaganda that makes readers think Scarff is an expert on OSA ("Much of what is known"...) I'm not sure of exactly how to fix this propaganda so I changed known to believed, but my change was reverted by the users who were building this propaganda and they keep removing the dispute tag. Same with the word "revelations" It is a propaganda technique in my opinion to use that word because it makes readers think Scarff revealed knowledge when he was only giving a testimony and he is known to lie and has no credibility. I asked Andrew for references on disproving Scarff's credibility but Andrew has not yet returned to Wikipedia. But it any case, I felt the choice of wording was propaganda to make readers think OSA conspires to murder someone. --Nikitchenko 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for almost 2 weeks, but Im back for the weekend at least. I am partially happy about the compromise proposed by Vivaldi. There are still subtle problems with the article. and users who keep putting back in what I removed: "personal websites" that do not have "a reputation for for fact-checking and accuracy" See WP:RS and WP:V. Now this group of individuals are saying WP:RS is only guideline and at least one of these people make subtle personal attacks in other scientology related article's discussion space. And the others are now defending the one who made the personal attack instead of discussing content. --Nikitchenko 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 12, 2006

Antaeus Feldpsar and Stollery is reverting my edits and not saying why[1] [2]. I clearly explain my deletions of unreliable sources in edit summary and talk page but Glen Stollery says Tory Christman's words can be used in the Office of Special Affairs article. This is against WP:V and WP:RS. --Nikitchenko 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is copied from the edit summary of when Stollery reverts me today: "I have explained TWICE on the talk page; WP:RS states does not state "only in the article about the person" but writing about the person. We are writing about Tory here! Watch your 3RR". Glen, talk to me in this page, not the editorial summaries. We are not writing about Tory, we are writing about the Office of Special Affairs. I don't like the way you keep reverting my valid changes. I don't think a 3rr should be applied in here so I made a complaint into our mediation page and documenting this. Again, I do not appreciate what you are doing. I will return when a mediator has responded. --Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. --Nikitchenko 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wikipediatrix

I'm completely ignorant of the proper procedure of the Mediation process, so apologies in advance if my commenting here is out of line. I basically wanted to note two things: 1. Although the format here is presenting the dispute as being between Nikitchenko and Stollery, it is in fact between several editors who have reverted Nikitchenko's edits. And 2., a glance at the article's talk page will show Nikitchenko's behavior in the matter to be confrontational and uninformational. Several editors have attempted, without success, to get Nikitchenko to give explanations and citations for his position that statements made by one "Garry Scarff" are not proper for the Office of Special Affairs article. wikipediatrix 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes several editors are involved, not just Stollery and I. Anyay, I DID discuss things with the editors, I let them keep what is said about Garry Scarff, but the issues still remained about POV/OR wording. And I am still here trying to get it fixed. --Nikitchenko 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Vivaldi

I would like to point out that I agree with comments of Wikipediatrix above. I asked Nikitchenko what the basis of his dispute with the article is and I never received a response. It is not appropriate to add the dispute tag unless you can at least cite specifically what is disputed. It is also innappropriate to use the dispute tag to point out that you disagree with the truthfulness of what has been verifiably sourced. It is not an editors job to independently determine truth. The only claim in the article is: "Scarff said 'such and such'". You cannot dispute that "Scarff said 'such and such'", because it is easily verifiable. (Scarff has made these claims hundreds of times and he continues to this very day to make the same assertions.) And if you want to dispute the "such and such" part of "Scarff said, 'such and such'", then you must do so in the article, by using sources that are verifiable. I'll be over on the talk page at Talk:Office of Special Affairs if you want to see my proposals. Vivaldi 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My said reasons for the disputes are all over the OSA article, but Vivaldi removed the dispute and dubious tag and then kept accusing me of not stating my dispute. After the uncivility and arguing, I did not see a point in going on. So I went to get help from neutral mediators. --Nikitchenko 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

My statement in this matter will be brief and simple. Here on Wikipedia we operate on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If party A claims X-Y-Z, and party B claims Z-Y-X, we report that party A claims X-Y-Z and party B claims Z-Y-X. It is in fact spelled out that editors are discouraged from doing their own research to try and "determine" whether X-Y-Z or Z-Y-X is "the truth".

Nikitchenko, however, despite having edited on Wikipedia since August of 2005, acts as if he has never understood this principle, despite it being explained to him numerous times. Instead, he acts as if he believes that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be judging the truth or falsity of the claims made by the various parties, and inserting tags in the article in order to communicate their personal judgments to the reader. He reads in the article that party B has claimed Z-Y-X and he inserts a {{dubious}} tag after it -- not because he in any way doubts or claims to doubt that B claims Z-Y-X, but because he asserts that he doubts Z-Y-X to be true -- and claims to believe that Wikipedia policy supports him inserting the {{dubious}} tag to inform the world that he is second-guessing these claims.

Clearly this is not the way Wikipedia works, and yet, after a month and a half, Nikitchenko claims that he still thinks that the {{dubious}} tag exists for the purpose of expressing the relative weight he, himself, chooses to give to claims of various sides. Needless to say, I find that claim of his quite {{dubious}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: ...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

No thank you.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Scarff assassin claim

This appeared to be in satisfaction of the initial issue raised by Nikitchenko, but doesn't seem to pertain to the most recent incarnation of this dispute. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV. This is the first time I have ever learned what is disputed, because on the talk page Nikitchenko has thus far failed to point out the basis for the dispute. We can certainly reword the specific sentence "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" and I will attempt to do so on the talk page now. Vivaldi 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with your suggestions Vivaldi, thanks for the effort. - Glen ^T _C 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a great compromise. But now there is more problem and I made a note of it in my statement up above. --Nikitchenko 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Tory Christman as a source re. OSA

We'll evaluate this particular area of compromise after we've worked out the precise problem. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Initial stages

Hi, I'm happy to mediate this case for you. What all parties need to decide is the format that they would like the mediation to take. My preference would be for it to take place on this page, and/or this page's talk page. IRC and e-mail are two other options, if people don't feel happy about everything be availbale to view for the whole community. It's up to you, but like I said my preference would be for the Wikipedia way. --Wisd e n17 23:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote for This page/talk page please if possible. I am based in New Zealand so time zone co-ordination for IRC could be tricky, whilst the other party **ahem, cough** claims he lives in Russia. - Glen ^T _C 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be living in Russia. Why are you making this point. This is borderline uncivility from you, Stollery. --Nikitchenko 08:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm experienced at mediation and have particular subject-specific knowledge of Scientology (I'm an experienced auditor), and I'm the coordinator down here; if the mediator, or anyone else, would like my assistance, I'm at the service of anyone who would like me to be. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas. Are you the coordinator for mediations or are you saying you are our mediator? First I would like to know if you have any bias for or against Scientology and religion in general. If you do, then I donot think it is fair that you be the mediator. --Nikitchenko 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nikitchenko: Yes, I am the coordinator for mediations down here at the Mediation Cabal; in regard to whether I have any bias for or against Scientology, I would say as regards the carrying out of mediation I act entirely outside of bias. However, it is true I have a high level of personal involvement in Scientology, although I always consider my duties as a Wikipedian take precedence - that is, my participation in Scientology as a practice makes no bearing on my actions as a mediator other to use what I know to assist people in disputes relating to the subject - and considered it best to make this perfectly clear to you, in the interests of public disclosure. I will be your mediator if you would like me to, but if you would not I understand perfectly. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think you will be a good moderator. Thank you. --Nikitchenko 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 May 2006 - preliminary analysis

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the long delay in processing this request, and I hope that it is possible we might be able to come to some sort of mutual agreement on how to bring this dispute to a close as expeditiously as possible. It is clear, looking at the matter, there is an actual dispute, but it seems difficult to pin down exactly what is still disputed regarding Office of Special Affairs (where I am assuming the new focus of dispute is). I would be grateful if each party would, in a brief and succinct summary, outline precisely which claims are disputed and where; please make this summary in the Discussion section below. In the meantime, however, I do have some thoughts about the matter, and I would ask the participants to please bear this in mind when summarising their side of the dispute:

Basically, the essence of NPOV is that where there are multiple points of view to describe something, we include the different points of view clearly marking them as being points of view from a given source. Are any claims still in the disputed articles that aren't made like this? If yes, then those claims just need to be attributed as being from their particular sources versus being asserted as unilateral facts; if no, then the dispute would seem moot, since all that is being presented is the points of view of the individual cases.
I think this particular dispute over the bona fides of Christman, Scarff, etc. as valid sources is something which has occurred outside Wikipedia, and indeed, crops up on alt.religion.scientology with regular frequency. The basic point I might make is really, it doesn't matter whether these claims are true or false, so long as the above concept of sourcing everything carefully is applied, if that makes any sense.

If the parties would please try to summarise the points of contention, it would help me get a better idea of where we can proceed (since the discourse above, and on the various talk pages, is entangled and rather difficult to disassemble into specific issues). Once we know which areas are under dispute, we can work on a strategy to remedy those issues to the satisfaction of all parties, and the dispute will be resolved. Thank you very much. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Status notifications left to all listed parties. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I get your notification and will contribute to the mediation but understands that sometimes I go days before I can return to Wikipedia. I won't be here again until this weeked but if I can return sooner I will say something here if others make comment first. --Nikitchenko 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed

Well, it seems Nikitchenko (talk • contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. I spoke to User:MarkGallagher recently about this on IRC, and it seems this user was a sockpuppet of User:AI (who was banned by the arbcom - q.v. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI), and was identified as a sockpuppet by a CheckUser. Since it seems clear the dispute gravitated around this user, and nobody else in this mediation seems to have a problem with following Wikipedia policy on citing sources, I don't really think there's anything more to be done. I think perhaps it might be advisable to all parties, however, to look out for new AI socks assiduously in the future, to avoid wasted time in dealing with them. I apologise for the fact that this mediation has been rather pointless in effect; I should have asked someone to run a CheckUser when I took up the case. But anyway, I'm closing this case now. I would like to thank all the participants in this mediation for their time and effort. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Nikichenko's summary

Several editors would like to present a point of view that is negative and based on unproven lies rumors and other false reports. They are mostly unreliable sources and citation is mainly to their personal websites. This is a violation of the definition of reliable source that is referenced by WP:V. These editors claim various reason why these references can be used as a source and I and several others disagree with them. They keep reverting my changes and I am only trying to follow the rules. Usually the editors don't even say why they revert me and with their reverts they remove some of my other changes. It almost seems as if they revert me just because they see my name now. And they are making personal comments and acting very angry and uncivil. I already wanted to quit wikipedia once I read some of the biased Wikipedia articles about Scientology but decided to do something about it. Now I am seeing how these editors oppose people like me who try to clean things up (falsehoods/rumors/lies/...unreliable sources) and I want to quit again but I will give things a change and go as far as an arbitration and if things still aren't addressed rationally at that point, then I will quit Wikipedia. --Nikitchenko 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar should be party to the mediation.[3] --Nikitchenko 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tilman should be party to this mediation. He claims there is no dispute with his revert.[4] --Nikitchenko 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO STOLLERY'S STATEMENTS BELOW:

I don't need to dispute whether or not Tory made any claims at all. She is an unreliable source and should not be used according to WP:V. WP:V refers us to WP:RS for definition of reliable source. Stollery is trying to twist WP:RS around to claim that we are writing about Tory.[5] The OSA article is about OSA not Tory. Just because Stollery say she makes the claim does not mean we are writing about her, if Stollery is writing about her then put it in her article not the OSA article. Stollery's uncivil attitude towards me last week[6] should be noted, especially since he claims to be a member of Esperanza. --Nikitchenko 08:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this mediation shall be tossed out just because Stollery thinks it is ludicrous. I documented Stollery's abuse.[7],[8] --Nikitchenko 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ANTAEUS FELDSPAR'S STATEMENTS BELOW:

Tory should not be used as a reference in the OSA article. Her claims unfounded and her personal website as reference is violating of policies. I see Antaeus as obfuscating which I receive and uncivil and injustice. I posted a complain about him already. [9] Antaues pretends I am alone this dispute, my argument is support by 2 other users: Olberon and Terryeo. --Nikitchenko 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO VIVALDI'S STATEMENTS BELOW:

Vivaldi engages when he doesn't even understand the current dispute. And he makes incivil personal attack in his statement. --Nikitchenko 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO FAHRENHEIT451'S STATEMENTS BELOW: Fahrenheit is another user I found to have had incivility problems. His argument below is already covered by my statement above. --Nikitchenko 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary by Stollery

The issue is simple. Nikichenko continues to either remove the following section completely, or add {{fact}} or {{dubious}} tags as seen here to the following statement:

Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members. ^[3] [the following is usually hidden but I'm revealing it to show what detail has gone into the reference]

The reason he states above for removing it is because it's taken from Ms. Christman's personal website. However, WP:RS states very clearly: "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself." (emphasis mine). The statement above states very clearly that we are writing about a claim made by Tory, the sentence "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that..." could not be clearer. Thus as we are writing about a claim Tory made, WP:RS stands and her personal website can be used.

The question I have for Nikichenko is: Is your position that Tory never made the above claim?

That is the only reason I can see for him removing/tagging the statement, and if that is the case then I will cite court documents or similar if necessary. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Nikichenko's response to my question above. He states Tory is an unreliable source. HOW CAN TORY BE AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE REGARDING HER OWN STATEMENTS??! Care to cite a better source? This is outrageous and Antaeus perfectly describes the rationale below. This entire Mediation should be tossed out due to it's ludicrous basis. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

Reply to Nikitchenko's reply above: Why, yes, Nikitchenko did make a completely baseless report about me to WP:AN/I. Why is he reporting the fact that he did as if it reflected badly upon me, rather than upon him? And why is he entirely unwilling to respond to the crux of the issue, which is that {{dubious}} tags do not exist to let editors insert their personal judgements about which POV they support? -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vivaldi's summary

I thought we agreed on a compromise already? What specifically are we talking about now? Is this going to be a never ending time-wasting ordeal?

Nikitchenko is engaging in poor wiki-editing by removing material which has nearly universal consensus for staying in the article. I would encourage Nikitchenko to quit removing this material from the article until there is an agreement among the editors to have it removed. Vivaldi (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fahrenheit451's statement

From reading the discussion on the OSA article talk page, it looks to me that Nikitchenko is representing the Reliable Source guideline as policy. That is the crux of the continuing edit war. --Fahrenheit451 01:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMediation_Cabal_Cases_2006-04-11_Scientology_61c3.html"

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-11 Scientology

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Statement from Stollery

[edit] Statement from Nikitchenko

[edit] May 12, 2006

[edit] Statement by Wikipediatrix

[edit] Statement by Vivaldi

[edit] Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Scarff assassin claim

[edit] Use of Tory Christman as a source re. OSA

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Initial stages

[edit] 25 May 2006 - preliminary analysis

[edit] 30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Nikichenko's summary

[edit] Summary by Stollery

[edit] Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

[edit] Vivaldi's summary

[edit] Fahrenheit451's statement

Views

Navigation

Search