Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Terryeo is selectively removing and altering his talk page discussions

It is unclear to me why his is doing this. His explanation does not make sense: "Sure, Fahrenheit451. I removed that older discussion material from my discussion page so as to keep its length within what I consider to be reasonable limits. I understand I could archive it if I chose to, I also understand that every editor may make their own choice, archive or delete at their own whim. I also understand the single item which an editor may not delete from his user page. I did not delete it to present a particular point of view because my point of view is pretty widely recognized and if anyone has any doubt of my stance, my user page tells you what I think of Wikipedia and how I hope to achieve a reader being able to come here to our Wikipedia and learn about those things which I feel I am capable of contributing about. To be honest, I don't understand your statement, "in a rather POV manner", if you would care to discuss how my deletion of past, resolved (I thought) discussions is contradictory to ongoing discussions, please say so. Terryeo 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)" Fahrenheit451 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a user's perogative to edit their user page. I removed this because, as I spelled out when I did, I did not like your invective use of language. I notice you use even stronger language which includes racial slurs on other editor's talk pages. I don't have the administrative status that User_talk:SlimVirgin does, but it is nonetheless within my rights as an editor to remove invective statements and past discussions. I thought we had finished the patter drill discussions. I provided you with the information you requested and you wrote the patter drill article which still, largely, stands. Terryeo 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, looks like you are using some Office of Special Affairs misinformation tactics here. Please cite the alleged "racial slurs" that you accuse me of making. Or are you the one who has made them? You are engaging in personal attacks again. --Fahrenheit451 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of your personal attacks, Fahrenheit451, selected at random from your contributions. (this guy is quite a troll)

[1] (be gone OSA troll) [2] Terryeo 14:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit, looks like I have responsded to your accusations about "working for the Office of Special Affairs" many times. I think it would be senseless to say the same thing again and again to you. I've responded to your accusation about that on talk pages, on your talk pages, on other's talk pages and to your assorted other accusations about "working for Scientology", that sort of thing. I've been forthcoming, that's not the issue before you, except to the degree you make it your issue. Terryeo 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the temporary injunction extend to article talk pages?

The arb com has issued an injunction against Terryeo editing Dianetics- and Scientology-related articles. Does this ban extend to the talk pages on those articles as well? If not, I suggest that the committee consider extending the injunction and any ultimate ban to include those, as in my view much of the Terryeo's disruptive action has taken the form of "wikilawyering" on article talk pages. BTfromLA 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate slightly, the Scientology term for what Terryeo is doing in the talk pages is "Dev-T": "[t]he phrase 'Dev-T' is a term which Scientology uses to mean to cause someone to do unnecessary work." ([3] top of page 3). Jane Kember of Scientology's Guardian's Office describes how to use Dev-T to inhibit publication of "books & entheta written about Scientology by SP's" (GO 166, October 1971):

Attempts to prevent a book being published are called pre-publication censorship, and are extremely unpopular legally. However, where U.S. legal has been successful is prior to Court appearances and actual trial in effecting settlement.
The button used in effecting settlement is purely financial. In other words, it is more costly to continue the legal action than to settle in some fashion. Doing this, legal U.S. usually moves for retraction of the libel and/or publication of a correction or Scientology viewpoint.
Therefore, it is imperative that legal US Dev-T his opponents and their lawyers with correspondence (a lawyer's letter costs approx $50), phone calls (time costs), interrogatories, depositions and whatever else legal can mock up.
One of the bright spots of US legal is that even if you lose you don't pay your opponent for his lawyers fees. Therefore the cost of any legal action is small by comparison with Commonwealth Countries, where the loser pays everything.

While there aren't actual lawyer's fees incurred for Dev-t developed on Wikipedia talk pages, the overall effect of wearing down critics with legalistic hassles is quite similar. Phr (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that you would describe Wikipedia editors whom, by personal experience, I know very well, all edit in good faith, with intent to produce balanced articles of a neutral point of view, per WP:NPOV and in a dry, encylopedic fashion, useful to a reader of Wikipedia, I find it interesting that you would group such persons into "critics" and then further consider and state that I am opposed to people of good faith, dedicated to creating balanced, useful Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 23:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Critics" here simply means people who have looked at Scientology objectively, and found that objective examination and neutral presentation of the facts results in an unflattering picture. Phr (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting, Phr. Whether or not Terryeo is motivated by "Dev-T" policy, Phr is correct in noting that Terryeo's behavior is consistent with the description above. A search through the history of the talk pages will find many occasions when editors describe Terryeo's behavior with phrases like "filibuster," "talk everything to death," "deliberate waste of everyone's time," etc. Not only do I believe this should result in a citation being issued to Terryeo, it seems to me that this "Dev-T" behavior should be recognized explicitly as a type of policy violation, and a mechanism should be put in place so that people will not be able to disrupt Wikipedia articles for months on end simply by adhering to that tactic. BTfromLA 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good observation, Phr. I agree that Terryeo is attempting to create dev-t. An outright ban from wikipedia is what he needs.--Fahrenheit451 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I have done from the beginning is to attempt to implement Wikipedia policies and guidelines into articles which editors seem to strongly prefer personal websites be used a sources of secondary information, including blogs, newsgroups and repository type links on personal websites, seem to prefer those to widely published sites of good repute. This action is entirely contrdicts Wikipedia policies and guidelines which attempt to encourage editors to use widely known, broadly published sources of information rather than narrowly published, sometimes untraceable information held on personal websites. I see it so often that I begin to wonder if some editors have some sort of vested interest in produceing website hits for their friends. This perception is only increased when I see editors chatting, variously, asking if they should request additional "help" from newsgroups such as alt.scientology. Terryeo 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo engaging in personal attacks again

I quote from Terryeo reply above: "I notice you use even stronger language which includes racial slurs on other editor's talk pages." He continues to violate wikipedia policy against personal attacks by falsely accusing other editors. --Fahrenheit451 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should ask an admin to ban him for at least 24 hours. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo adds partisan blog link to Patter Drills

I removed this link because it did not conform to the WP:RS guideline which Terryeo advocates strongly. He added it on 19 April 06. Interestingly enough, the linked page was created on 15 April 06. The blog was written allegedly by a member of the cofs and provided only her opinion on patter drills and related topics.

Laurie Hamilton responds to the Golden Age of Tech and Patter Drills [4] --Fahrenheit451 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added that to a talk page, when someone asked for another point of view on something. I don't believe I added it into an article. Why didn't you link the difference which shows your accusation, rather than linking the webpage you find violates talk page discussion? Terryeo 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. [5]--Fahrenheit451 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn Right ! I added that as "other links" in an exterior section and not as a secondary source of information. Damn Right ! Exactly in the section all such personal website links and opinions should go ! Damn Right ! Terryeo 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you find that in an article, or in a talk page? I've used that link a couple of times in respose on talk pages, toward answering questions about various things because "experts.com" has several "experts", Hamilton being one, but there are others too, not all of whom are pro-Scientology. It provides an additional point of view, for those who are interested. Seem reasonable to you? Especially in response to questions on talk pages. Did I post that actually in an article as a secondary source of information? I don't think I did. Terryeo 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu.net

Xenu.net is in fact a personal site, but it hosts a lot of archive material whose authenticity hasn't been challenged in this RFaR as far as I know. The citations being challenged are to this archive material (audio lectures by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, IIRC) and not to the personal essays and so forth that are also to be found on the site. IMO a principle should be developed that addresses this distinction, and the factfinding should follow from the principle. For example, if the exact same documents were on Wikisource, they'd be usable as cites (but hosting them in the US would likely attract legal hassles from the Scientologists). In both instances, the source being cited is L. Ron Hubbard, not the hosting web site. It's like citing a book located at such-and-such library. The library isn't responsible for the book's contents. Phr 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Phr is correct. Terryeo's argument about xenu.net is so far-fetched and misleadingly stated that I'm not surprised some arb com members were confused by it. Here is an example of what Terryeo claims about xenu.net being a "personal website": By Terryeo's logic, a review of Dianetics in the Jan 1951 issue of Scientific American by Nobel-prize winning physicist I. I. Rebi, which is available on xenu.net, should be disqualified as a source for Wikipedia on the grounds that Rebi's text is a personal opinion of Andreas Heldal-Lund (b. 1964) on his personal website. (Mind-boggling, but that really is Terryeo's argument, and his edits reflect it.) The xenu.net site is structured as an historical archive of material on Scientology. While some it is introduced by the webmaster, overwhelmingly the content of the site is written by others. Most of it is material from sources published elsewhere which have fallen out of print, such as the archive of press coverage of Dianetics in 1950s that the site provides here. Very few of the many citations of Xenu.net in the Wikipedia Scientology-related articles cite the writings or opinions of Heldal-Lund (I'm not aware of even one such example). It is clearly not the sort of "personal website or blog" that the reliable source guidelines are aiming to filter out. (As Phr suggests above, it may be that those guidelines should be clarified to distinguish between sites that host existing material and those that generate original material.) BTfromLA 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (Slight revision to clarify meaning by BTfromLA 01:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
It is misleading to state, "The xenu.net site is structured as an historical archive of material on Scientology." But is accurate to state, "The xenu.net site is structured as a historicial archive of anti-Scientology material". Obviously. Not a good word on how Scientology has helped people is to be found on there, not a single instance of "My life is better because I have done some Scientology" is to be found on there. The site is structed to mis-present information toward squashing helpful information. That the most well known inflammatory, anti-scientology site on the internet recommends Wikipedia on its front page should give you a clue, don't you think? Terryeo 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Terryeo, you are making an over-broad, and thus inaccurate, claim. Xenu.net does include many pro-scientology testimonials as part of it's original content, and much of the site is simply an archive of press coverage, in varying degrees of pro, neutral and con, that Hubbard and Scientology have attracted over the years. (see, for example, this page). Is the site promoting a critical view of the Church of Scientology? Yes, it is. But your specfic claims about it are false--it does not exclusively host anti-Scientology material. If you are aware of good, third-party press accounts that the site doesn't include, perhaps you should bring those to the webmaster's attention. You can also write your own criticism of the site, and, unless appearances decieve, he'll publish it there. BTfromLA 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
From Xenu.net:
  • "Scientology is wonderful. It has made my life so much better. ... One thing IS true though, and that is, it works. The tech works so well I am starting to train as an auditor so I can help whomever wants a better life."[6] (emphasis added)
  • "the Tech had helped me to get a better grip on life (auditing, training and the study tech)."[7]
  • "Like it or not though,the TECH of Scientology works."[8]
  • "I have hundreds of happy, enhanced preclears who I have helped lead a better life"[9]
  • "I would reccomend to anyone that if they want to improve their life, go to a CoS and sign up for the "Success through Communication" course."[10]
Arbitrators, I would like to ask that you give serious consideration to extending Terryeo's ban from Scientology and Dianetics articles to the talk pages as well. Wikipedia can only function when editors can trust each other, and if the evidence presented shows us anything it is that we cannot trust Terryeo -- not even in simple things, such as actually meaning "I am quoting" when he says the words "I quote". (And this is in the middle of his RfAr! If this is Terryeo on his best behavior, while he's under scrutiny, how could we ever expect him to exhibit acceptable behavior?) We cannot trust Terryeo not to remove material that he doesn't like from talk pages. We cannot trust Terryeo to represent Wikipedia's guidelines and policies correctly -- if any more evidence is needed on this point, please let me know so I can add it to /Evidence. We cannot trust him not to make malicious accusations totally without evidence against other editors, such as claiming that Fahrenheit451 makes racial slurs[11] or that ChrisO abuses animals[12] or that I was "once banned for a week for a personal attack"[13] or "barred for a month for your method of dealing with other people"[14] (both false claims) or that all the editors whom Terryeo opposes are "cut an paste artists"[15] and that he need not even question whether this accusation has any merit before presuming it to be true and asking "Where are you cutting and pasting from for the Dianetics and Scientology articles?"[16] I strongly request the Arbitration Committee to consider whether Terryeo's behavior, not just disruptive to the articles but poisonous to the entire process of editing, is fully addressed by banning him from the articles only. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to mention that typing "Scientology" into Google right now results in almost 17 million hits. Hit #1 is www.scientology.org (the official Church site); #2 and #3 are both from xenu.net. Given Scientology's litigation history and xenu.net's prominence, you can be sure that everything on xenu.net has been carefully fact-checked by Scientology lawyers. Phr 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"fact checked by scientology lawyers"? Really? And when "scientology lawyers" find a mis-statement in that man's personal opinion, what do you suggest they do? If it is his opinion that the moon is made of green cheese or if it is his opinion that Chris Owen once, during a full moon, danced sky clad with a coven, what do you suppose "scientology lawyers" do with their fact-checked information? One's opinion might be just anything at all. One's opinion need not even include facts. He may, within the context of his "opinion" make any statement whatsoever and not have the least jot of "fact" within it. Scientology Laywers have a different interest than Wikipedia Editors who want published information to be appropriately presented to the public. Terryeo 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at the risk of BEANSing, I would suggest that the arbitrators consider a modified version of proposed finding of fact #4: that "using a personal website as a secondary source" does not include using secondary sources which are themselves acceptable, which happen to be mirrored on a personal website. It seems to me that this is only logical: If Andreas Heldal-Lund came to Wikipedia himself, and transcribed relevant quoted material into the articles from an acceptable secondary source such as Gardner's Fads and Fallacies, we would not only accept that, we would praise it as making sure the articles were well-sourced and well-cited. It simply doesn't make sense to say we would trust Heldal-Lund's transcription skills in this instance, but would view them as unreliable to the point of a blanket prohibition if he transcribes the very same material to his website first, rather than directly to Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
And I view that as a further attempt to press Wikipedia further down, to allow slightly poorer quality of sources of information, as a step toward allowing wikipedia to quote and cite newsgroups, rather than a effort toward a higher quality of information on Wikipedia. Which is precisely what my effort has been throughout, though you consitantly refuse to address the issue of "good quality information" and instead consistantly play in the mud of emotional bias and bad faith. "Quality of Information" is one issue, where it is located is another issue. Those things are not subject to "trust" and "lack of trust" because those issues can be looked at by anyone. Terryeo 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And I am glad that was your response, as it shows to the arbitrators how dealing with you is always dealing with non sequiturs and red herrings dragged across the trail. Newsgroups? If the facts and logic are on your side as regards websites, then why are you attempting to change the subject to newsgroups? The fact is that if Andreas Heldal-Lund himself were to become a Wikipedia editor and were to transcribe material from acceptable secondary sources to Wikipedia articles, it would not decrease the quality of information in Wikipedia one bit, since that is what Wikipedia expects editors to do now. No matter how many times you try to invent words that Andreas didn't say and put them in his mouth to try and claim that he's reserving on his website the right to commingle his personal opinion with material he's transcribing from other sources, you've been unable to show even one instance of him doing so. This means that we have a far better track record of getting accurate relay of material through him than we do through you, since we don't even have to go to a different page to read you claiming that you "quote" someone when what you really do is insert your own personal opinion between quotation marks and pretend you don't know the difference between that and quoting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the statement by jayjg ".. and the vast majority of the material on it is written by that individual (though it does include a few articles written by others)." How was that determined? Even a quick scan of the top page doesn't show a "vast majority" of material by Andreas Heldal-Lund, and very little down in various archive pages. The number of articles written by others is a few orders of magnitude larger than "a few". AndroidCat 13:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
In the matters of funding and information on Andreas Heldal-Lund, keep in mind that this site is operated in the face of the machinery of the Church of Scientology. If he accepts outside funding, he would be legally forced to reveal contributors, and open these people up for harassment. As well, CoS/RTC would then say that he is "paid to run a hate site against Scientology". Any personal details that he reveals will also be used by CoS/RTC and will probably turn up in twisted form on their pages about him (site registered to the Scientology Parishioners Committee). This doesn't change Wikipedia's policies, of course, but it's not exactly a normal situation. AndroidCat 14:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've toned down the language. As for the website being a personal one, we seem to all be in agreement that it is one. Please note that the Proposed decision has not made any ruling regarding whether or not article on it can be referred to or linked to. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If that throws the decision back to the article editors then I guess it's ok. Sooner or later, RS may have to be updated. Even more than xenu.net, there were sites like Cornelius Krasel's which were basically dumps of thousands of litigation documents that weren't online anywhere else. That's very relevant material that's hard to get any other way. Dave Touretzsky's site is another example, it analyzes extracts of various Scientology documents under fair use (he can't use the docs in entirety because of copyright). Citing his analysis might not qualify under RS, but the stuff quoted is accurate as quotes and those should be usable as quotes. Phr 06:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the issue of xenu.net has been misstated by both Fred Bauder and jayjg. It's not simply a question of whether xenu.net is a "personal website" - under the criteria in WP:RS it probably does qualify as such - but whether and how the material on it can be cited. Terryeo takes the extreme position that even if that material exists offline, e.g. in book or newspaper form, it may not be cited, because it's hosted on a "personal website" (see e.g. [17]). This is clearly little more than an excuse to get rid of citations that he dislikes for POV reasons, as he hasn't claimed that it's in any way misquoted or altered by xenu.net. A number of Wikipedia articles do link to content hosted on xenu.net but in every case I can think of, that content is available offline and the link is merely a convenient reference for the reader. There's no difficulty in having a non-linked reference, e.g. "Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah, p. 53 (Sphere, 1988)" but the locus of this particular dispute is whether such references should be linked to online copies hosted on xenu.net or elsewhere. -- ChrisO 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I know you run a personal website ChrisO which advocates STRONGLY against Scientology, I further see that you oppose Scientology by every means you can, in ever instance you can. I've seen you quote a piece of two setences, put them into an article, cite the source and then split the sentences, insert dispersive information which is not included in the cited source and then follow it with your own original research from other sources which you did not cite, all included as sourced to a Scientology site. You did that with terra incognita, referenced on the site, [18], and you get away with nonesense like that which is entirely against good encyclopedic writing because other editors share your point of view. As long as those sorts of practices continue, it is obvious the Scientology articles can not be cleanly presented to the public, no matter how well the various editors get along with each other. Terryeo 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I do point to WP:V and consider the better the citations we provide, the better quality Wikipedia will be. A stronger position is made by citing well regarded websites rather than citing personal websites. Terryeo 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been framed as to whether or not xenu.net is a personal website, which is why I've responded to that specifically; it undoubtedly is. However, when a website is merely reproducing information from reliable sources (e.g. Time magazine), then I don't see any issue in linking to that website for convenience. Note, this is not a blanket approval for doing so in all cases. I have seen many instance of websites that are not reliable enough to even reproduce outside information; they edit, comment on, or otherwise modify the information presented, or simply cannot be trusted not to have done so. Also, one must always be wary of copyright issues. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I don't think that is how the question was framed by Fred Bauder. It's not whether it is in any sense a personal website. The question as written is whether it is "a personal website in the sense that it represents only the opinion of one person." BTfromLA 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything that is on that website is either written by the owner or included by the owner. It all reflects the opinion of that individual. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue, however, is not "does it reflect the opinion of an individual?" but "does it reflect only an opinion of an individual?" I think one of the reasons that any sane analysis must consider Terryeo's interpretation of "using a personal website as a secondary source" absurd is that it means anyone could make a perfectly acceptable source unsuitable for use on Wikipedia by choosing to mirror it. Did the New York Times run a front-page expose damaging to my favorite cause? No problem; I'll simply scan in the article and host the scan on my website. Now, according to Terryeo's interpretation, any article referring to the NYT piece is now "using a personal website as a secondary source" and any claims which are supported by the NYT piece may be ripped out of the article. Does it sound like I'm exaggerating Terryeo's position to the point of absurdity? I wish I was, but it's Terryeo himself who brought it to that absurdity; it's he who removed material that I personally checked to make sure was 100% faithful to a hard copy of the book, on the pretext that since a convenience link was provided to xenu.net, all references to a book which predates the Web itself by at least three decades were now "using a personal website as a secondary source". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The man states what it is. My big objection that really sucks the Scientology articles down is the widespread use of personal websites (including Clambake) as secondary sources of information. Right now there might be 100 instances of that in the Scientology articles. The extension of my objections, "let's not use personal websites for their repository information either" seems valid to me but I see that is widely disagreed with here. Terryeo 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said above, WP:RS, and the fact that Clambake is a personal website, in no way precludes using it as a source for mirroring content from reliable sources like the NYT etc. Given that you could simply cite the NYT without providing the link to Clambake at all, the absurdity of removing a reference simply because you link to Clambake as a convenience is obvious. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we are in agreement on this, but it's specifically one of the issues in dispute in the RFAr, so it might help if the arb ruling actually says something to the effect that a "convenience link" is ok as long as the actual cite is to a RS. The Time Magazine article mentioned above [19] has apparently frequently been stolen from libraries by Scientologists (some legal testimony about this practice is at [20]), in order to prevent it from being read by the public, so the online mirror is important. Phr (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
An element of quality that the "convenience link" discussion is overlooking is that a personal website does not gurantee the quality of the information on it. Therefore, a higher quality of information is assured to Wikipedia readers by linking to the source which produced the information which is cited, rather than linking to a personal website, containing the same information. And "quality of information" contains two issues. One is that a personal website could honestly make some small error. Another though is simply that when Dr. (anyone) creates a professional opinion, confidence that it his opinion is better understood if it appears on his site (or whatever site created the information). As an example of misleading quality, Clambake.org has 100s of essays, some of those were created to appear exactly like the document they were coplied from (such as proposed court documents which look official), but at the very bottom of such essays appears (essey by ......) rather than what you would hope to find, (document from State Court of .....). Such "convenience links" can easily be misleading and by default, original sources of secondary information will help the reader be more confident of the quality of information on Wikipedia. Terryeo 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, while I'd agree that it would be ideal to link to an online archive by the original publisher of a given article, in many cases that isn't available--this is especially true in the case of a topic like the history of Dianetics, where much of the relevant material was published in the early 1950s. Independent archival websites are a legimate alternative source of convenience links to cited documents, and unless there is some evidence that the transcribed copies hosted on those sites significantly distort the original material, there's no real issue here. If you are claiming that there are many archived documents of "misleading quality" on clambake.org, can you please provide a couple of examples (preferably of linked documents that have actually been used in wikipedia articles)? BTfromLA 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I state that Wikipedia Policies and guidelines state certain things. You imply I have made a claim. I state that Wikipedia, WP:V pretty clearly spells out that widely published, best sources are what is preferred. Then I even say why. And you say tha I have "claimed" something? no. I have "claimed" that I have read and understood Wikipedia policy. This sort of situation keeps happening and keeps happening. How in the world can my stating what a policy or guideline states be inferred as being a "claim" ? Terryeo 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Good grief, Terryeo-- here's your claim: "Clambake.org has 100s of essays, some of those were created to appear exactly like the document they were coplied from (such as proposed court documents which look official), but at the very bottom of such essays appears (essey by ......) rather than what you would hope to find, (document from State Court of .....). Such 'convenience links' can easily be misleading ..." I simply asked you to provide supporting examples. BTfromLA 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. clambake, has a search function, available on many of its pages. Search "modemac", for example, yields 25 articles. [21] while search, "Fahrenheit" yields one [22]. Search "Chris Owen" yields 114. [23]. Click the 9th link of the Chris Owen list (just a random selection) yields a page which actually is the page I used to state my "claim". Terryeo 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC) That official appearing page [24] which looks very much like a court document is actually an essey written and signed by Chris Owen. The page has official looking capitalization, official looking signature block, official looking, court document appearing layout but is nothing but an essey, written by Chris Owen. It might have been filed as a court document, or, it might have been created wholesale by Chris Owen as some sort of a fantesy, there is no way of knowing either from the page or from the website, as all of the website is presented as "my opinion". Terryeo 04:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

From the parent page [25], it's clear that the source of each document or opinion piece is listed at the top of each page. Your interpretation of the "last updated by" information at the bottom of the page seems bizarre. It's a shame that Clambake didn't have displayable version and history information (in April 1997) like Wikipedia now does, but there you are. AndroidCat 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That page is a filing in the Tax Analysts' court case. Chris Owen's name is at the bottom because he uploaded the file, not because he wrote its contents. Phr (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That document is clearly labelled, and as Android Cat and Phr have pointed out, nothing suggests that this is an essay (or "essey") by Chris Owen as you have claimed. Nor is their any evidence that the webpage (or any similar pages on the site) is not a fair representation of the official court document. (Transcribing documents makes for faster and more readable webpages than does presenting scans of the printed originals.) Nor, as far as I know, is your example one that has actually been used in connection with a Wikipedia article. Looks to me as if the misleading source here is you, Terryeo. BTfromLA 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not misleading you when I quote that website's statement which says, "Everything on this site is my personal opinion". I am not misleading you when I state that the site presents that as an "Essay by Chris Owen". You are doing precisely what the owner of the site hopes everyone who reads the site will do. You ignore what he actually says. You ignore the written word on the page which presents the information as "personal opinion" and "essay by Chris Owen" and instead you observe the presented information and create your own opinion about the source of that informaiton. Actually, that consitutes orginal research in the sense that it ignores the actual stated word on the page. Terryeo 11:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You are misleading people about it being an essay. The word "essay" never appears on that page. Nor does it appear on the parent page, where the link, in context, reads "Tax Analysts v. IRS: Undisputed Material Facts, 13 July 1995 (Tax Analysts)", the latter clearly being a citation. To claim that the text "Last updated 10 April 1997 by Chris Owen" means that Chris Owen authored the document is disingenuous at best.--68.91.36.131 15:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, it is completely transparent that you are attempting to mislead everyone who reads what you write. Case in point: both of the direct quotations that you've cited above are complete fabrications by you! Nowhere that I've seen does that website state "Everything on this site is my personal opinion" nor does the page you used as an example anywhere say "Essay by Chris Owen." You just make stuff up, then, when nobody believes your fabrications, you maintain you are being unfairly persecuted for speaking the truth. BTfromLA 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom of the main page, [26] states: "I Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions." That pretty clearly states that everything on Heldal-Lund's site is Heldal-Lund's personal opinion. In address to the second point you make, BTfromLA, On Clambake, this link [27] says the site owner Classifies these 17 Chris Owen created documents as "essays" (as compared to the 114 total documents which Andreas Heldal-Lund attributes to Chris Owen).

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Terryeo 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I'm glad to see you admitting that your earlier claims were fabrications. The "I Andreas Heldal-Lund..." quote is not at all what you presented earlier as a direct quote--not even a close paraphrase. And the fact that Chris Owen has written some essays means--what? The germane fact is that the document you said was labeled as an essay by Chris Owen was not so labeled, nor is there any reason to suspect that it is written by him (let alone in the form of an essay). BTfromLA 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, this sounds very much like your earlier statement on my talk page which, after a good deal of discussion, you told me you posted to me as a challenge. This feels quite similar because it mis-states what I have said and then, based on your mis-statement, challenges the authenticity of what I have said. And all of that refuses utterly to confront the issue I intended to communicate about. :) Terryeo 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If I'm going to converse wih you, I will indeed challenge you to defend your statements when they are plainly false, or to revise your position. Some modicum of intellectual honesty is necessary if you wish to engage in the discussions here. As has often been the case, you don't respond to the facts presented, except to accuse your critic of wrong doing. OK, I'll bite... what was my mis-statement to which you refer? BTfromLA 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
All right BTfromLA. Your statement (from above)
  • BTfromLA: "Terryeo, it is completely transparent that you are attempting to mislead everyone who reads what you write. Nowhere that I've seen does that website state "Everything on this site is my personal opinion"".
  • Heldal-Lund's statement: "I Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions." (from above and at the bottom of [44]
  • My statement, (semi-quoting Heldal-Lund) "Everything on this site is my personal opinion."
  • Jayjg (arbitrator) states above: "Everything that is on that website . . . reflects the opinion of that individual."
    • this is my reply to BTfromLA's statement (or accusation) that I am attempting to mislead "everyone who reads what I write." Terryeo 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Terryeo. I stand by my earlier remark: you represented that "Everything on the site..." line as a direct quotation, using the words "I quote" and wrapping the phrase in quotation marks. There's no way you could have been clearer that you were asserting this was a literal quote, not "semi-quoting" as you now claim. That phrase does not appear on the website, nor is your version even an accurate paraphrase of what Heldel-Lund wrote. In the first sentence you refer to, Heldel-Lund is stating that he is responsible for the site as a whole. In the second, he's claiming that when he speaks, he is speaking only for himself. Neither of these things remotely means that everything on the site is his personal opinion--unless you mean his personal opinion about what sort of articles should be included on the site (completely distinct from the content of the individual articles which are authored by others). By the way, their are several pro-dianetics articles archived on the xenu.net. Are those just his personal opinions, too? The point is, you misrepresented what the site says, both with this made-up quote and with the made-up claim that the court document page was labelled "essey by Chris Owen." Nothing you presented above contradicts that fact. BTfromLA 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you are mistaken. I understand you are unable to conceive of how your statement, "You are misleading people who read what you write" and my statement, "I quote Haldel-Lund who says...", I understand you can not view that as your mistake. It is however your mistake because of his words. Unfortunately, you are unable to view our discussion as one toward understnding Haldel-Lund's statement, unfortunately you can only take the stance that I am deliberately misleading others, that there is no other possible point of view than A) your own and B) my attempt to mislead you (and others). That is unfornate because it precudes a real discussion of the actual statement Halde-Lund Makes. You are attacking, you are telling me (and everyone) that I am misleading everyone. I tell you that is not the situation. It is unfortunate no possible third path exists except that I would have to attack your position in order to bring about a discussion of what Haldel-Lund is saying. However, I see that is the situation. Any discussion which does not involve me defending myself, or alternativly, attacking your position is not going to happen. I've tried though. Alas. Terryeo 21:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you've made it clear that you aren't interested in taking responsibility for what you write--if you make a case based on a quotation and it turns out that you made up the quotation, that's a problem that needs addressing. If you did that in a college essay, you'd flunk. As to the content of what Heldel-Lund actually did write, and what that means, I explicitly addressed that and you simply blew by it, declaring that I wasn't willing to have "a real disussion of the actual statement." So, no, I don't think that you have tried, if trying means having an intellectually honest exchange about any of the issues that you've raised here. BTfromLA 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. I have stated explicity, by juxtaposing closely the statements in question for examination. I say the statement say nearly the same thing, that all of the personal website which that gentelman claims ownership of and which expresses his personal opinion is exactly as he states it to be. That you don't read it that way is not my responsibility, nor do I consider it my responsibility to convince you of my opinion. I do, however, hold the opinion that his words mean what they state. And, to reply once again to your accusation of my misleading, I point again to the words as he writes them. I stated his words slightly differently than he did, but the gist of it remained the same as his statement. It was not a misleading manner of re-stating his words. Terryeo 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Stating words "slightly" differently is called paraphrasing. Not quoting. Quoting is defined as "Repeating or copying the word of another." Since you now admit that you were paraphrasing and not quoting, perhaps we can now discuss the actual meaning of the phrase like you wanted to?--KSevcik 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The arb committee has stated their opinion, what is there to discuss? Clambake is running a personal website. It is entirely clear to me that his interpretation of information is vastly different than the information which he interprets and opines on. However, any person will form an opinion. One person likes apples, the next person does not, both publish thier opinions.Terryeo 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you say "his interpretation is vastly different..." whose interpretation? Heldel-Lund? Are you referring to what I said? It isn't clear who "his" refers to. BTfromLA 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly why I've advocated ignoring Terryeo - his intellectual dishonesty and sheer laziness in checking his assertions is such that it's impossible to get anywhere with him. Discussing things with him is just a waste of time and effort, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
On one hand you accuse me outright of "intellectual dishonesty" when I have been much more forthcoming and responsive than many editors. For example, my user page states my interest. And, at the same time, I haven't opposed other points of view though several editors, even on this page, accuse me of "pov pushing" frequently. "intellectual dishonesty" edges on personal attack. You neither spell out a specific incident of "intellectual dishonesty" nor do you give a context, but to mirror another's words. I've certainly attempted to point out how some of these articles are not easily understood and how, frequently, the difference of only a few characters can make a large difference in an article. No, My asserstions above are pretty accurately stated. Terryeo 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, we are wading in incidents of your intellectual dishonesty. Specifically stating that you are quoting Andreas Heldal-Lund when you are not in any way restricting yourself to actual quotes and have no intention of doing so -- that is intellectual dishonesty. End of story. Even if "assume good faith" were to be taken to the absurd extremes you suggest where not even a mountain of evidence testifying to your double standards, your false accusations against other editors, your placing words into people's mouths that they never said and your concealment of it with the false claim that you were quoting them -- even if anyone were to believe that these are all due to you being incapable of proper behavior rather than simply unwilling, it would not change the fact that your behavior is behavior that cannot be accepted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The statements look very similar to me. I don't see any intellectual dishonesty to what I have said. Are you unable to spell out the difference, is that why you simply quit saying "End of Story?"Terryeo 07:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"Look very similar" is not "quoting". This is something which has already been explained to you by KSevcik, above. Even if we were to believe your pretense that you still don't understand why placing your interpretation of what someone says between quotation marks and prefacing it with "I quote" is committing a falsehood, it only converts the nature of your offense from a level of intellectual dishonesty that Wikipedia cannot tolerate to a level of intellectual incompetence that Wikipedia cannot tolerate. And frankly, no matter how much you might berate us for not attributing your proven failures to that intellectual incompetence, your failure to see what has been placed directly before you in black and white for the sole purpose of making you see it is of a level that no sane person would credit. One might as well believe at that point that the person who replaces the whole of George W. Bush with "LARRY HAS A BIG DICK" is making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by keeping us up to date on Larry's anatomical oddities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, more power to you if you've found high ground for "wading." At this end of the pool, we're submerged. BTfromLA 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You asked, I specified, now you say you are submerged? Terryeo 07:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Submerged in intellectual dishonesty from Terryeo. My remark to Antaeus was not merely about your latest reply, but about your long history of refusing to engage in honest dialogue or to confront facts or opinions that contradict your claims. It also refers to the fact that your claims often strain credibility from the get-go. My comment refers to the great periods of time that all of us have wasted attempting to explain in good faith why various interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines that you hold--an archive of published material by various authors is one man's "personal opinion," a "reputable publisher" is the one with the most copies printed, introductions should follow the formula 1.term 2.topic 3. context, etc.--are incorrect, and the fact that you typically respond by ignoring the points raised, changing the subject, denying that you were making any argument at all or accusing the person who is trying to communicate with you of some unrelated misdeed. You make completly outlandish and disruptive statements, then pout when somebody "evaluates" them and challenges you to address their objections. Fair-minded argument over interpretations and priorities is at the heart of collaborative editing, and you have shown yourself not only unable or unwilling to engage it, but persistently dedicated to obstructing the process by inserting disruptive nonsense. BTfromLA 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLa, you have 4 times on this page accused me of "intellectual dishonesty". Those have all been accusations, the sort of tone one would use as a hostile laywer when cross examining a witness. Those have not been pleasent, give and take, back and forth sorts of discussions such as one would engange in with a peer. The challenging edge which you have used in other posts has been present throughout your accusations. I have been responsive. I have quoted, stated, linked, and so on. My statements, when quoted and cited are fairly close to what the statement I referenced said. And, I am not the only person who has an opinion that Xenu.net is a personal website. The owner himself presents it as his personal opinion. An accusation is one thing, it can be presented as a personal attack or it can be presented as an element toward mutual understanding. But you don't follow that. I respond. You ignore what I say and you again state your accusation. I respond again, I quote and cite and you ignore and repeat your accusation. By this time, I am convinced that you are unwilling to discuss, you see? Because you have not discussed, instead you have said the same thing again. And again. No matter what I say, you ignore what I say and you make the same accusation again. The term, "mutual effort toward good articles" apparently is not in your vocabulary? Terryeo 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reword item

"The practice of first setting forth the viewpoint of the advocates of a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected." is better written "The practice of first setting forth a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected." It would be easier to read with the change. --Davidstrauss 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Terryeo_Proposed_decision_78e0.html"