Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 19 February 2005
Case Closed on 12 March 2005
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
[edit] The parties
Xtra, petitioner
v.
PSYCH (AKA user:210.50.249.123, user:210.50.40.50, user:210.50.41.212, user:210.50.201.231, user:210.50.218.97, user:210.50.41.61, user:210.50.45.7, user:210.50.45.52, user:203.134.133.52, user:210.50.112.28), respondent
[edit] Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words
This Request for Arbitration against PSYCH covers two grounds.
One – That PSYCH has spent all his time on wikipedia engaging in personal attacks against me.
Two – That, to further his aims, he has posted on other websites to get people to join his crusade against me.
On the first ground -
The incidents started after I reverted an incorrect edit to the Liberal Party of Australia page. A few days later I posted a reputable source for this. In addition, all users posting to talk:Liberal Party of Australia, bar an anonymous editor agreed with me.
Examples of comments by those agreeing with me [1], [2].
One of the original comments of the anonymous user [3].
An example of PSYCH claiming that it is in fact I that disagree with everyone [4]
The anonymous user is PSYCH. For one, PSYCH admitted it, [5] (the other guy referred to is Buffy05).
The IP addresses that PSYCH has posted from include: user:210.50.249.123, user:210.50.40.50, user:210.50.41.212, user:210.50.201.231, user:210.50.218.97, user:210.50.41.61, user:210.50.45.7, user:210.50.45.52, user:203.134.133.52.
PSYCH claims that I started it all when I questioned why he didn’t get into a certain uni [6].
However, the evidence differs. PSYCH questioned the truth of my claim to be studying law [7] and I replied by saying that I would not make the same comments about him [8].
With regards to the comments made on talk:Liberal Party of Australia, all the posts, except for the top one, which are not signed are by PSYCH.
After PSYCH got a user account, he posted numerous things on my talk page. He calls me a Nazi [9], which as a person with relatives who lived through the holocaust, I find highly offensive. Raul654 then warns him not to make such posts [10]. So PSYCH removes the reference to Nazi [11]. I thank him for removing it [12]. So just to prove that he only removed it to avoid punishment PSYCH posted the following inflammatory statement:
“ Calling you something that rhymes with "Mazi" wasn't innacurate, I just didn't want to get banned so I decided to remove it. I think the burden is on you to prove why you're not a (rhymes with "Mazi") because your politcal views closely resemble those of a (rhymes with "Mazi"), your suspicious views on gay marriage and gay adoption speak volumes (when according to you, gays have "plenty of rights."). - PSYCH 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) “
If PSYCH was also a valid contributor to wikipedia such indiscretions may be forgivable. However, other than the incorrect post that he made to Liberal Party of Australia as an anonymous user, his only activities with wikipedia have been to attack me [15]. In fact, for the first six days after receiving his user account, PSYCH does not make a single contribution to the article space. He only starts contributing to the article space [16] & [17] after being told off for not contributing by RickK [18]. One of those three edits that PSYCH has made to the article space was in fact to re-insert some of the POV to the Liberal Party page that he was told by numerous users was incorrect (see above).
On the second ground –
It appears as though PSYCH has posted on another website to get people, who are not otherwise wikipedians, to join his attacks on me. See [19]. Here is the threat that he made as while he was an anonymous user to that effect [20].
In conclusion:
PSYCH wastes my time and the time of other users by creating bogus arbitrations [21], mediations [22], and posts inflammatory comments on my talk page. A user with such little real contributions and so many personal attacks and acting in such bad faith deserves to be disciplined and I would suggest, such disciple should include some sort of editing restrictions.
I would have preferred not to have taken this to arbitration, but it is consuming too much of my time and RickK told me it was the only way to solve it [23], [24]. Jwrosenzweig recommended this be taken to arbitration as mediation was not going to work [25].
Thank you for your consideration. Xtra 01:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by affected party
User Xtra initially started the personal attacks by reverting and being critical of a single revert. He then launched his first personal attack, stating: i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from.
He then became critical and asked me why I wasn't good enough to get into his university. That was the moment he clearly started the personal attacks. By asking whether he was actually at Melbourne uni I was simply asking him a question after he had updated his page seconds after talking to me. It was a statement, but he originally initiated the personal attacks.
He has then launched further personal attacks accusing me of being other users on Wikipedia, stating that he asked a "developer" to find out whether I were other users. This is a serious personal attack and invasion of privacy.
He has then launched into personal attacks against other users aswell, for example, Xtra stated: just a comment. Ozguy is a new user, with this being his only edit. suspect is sockpuppet of PSYCH. Xtra 03:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) link
So not only is he attacking me, he's also resorting to attacking other contributing Wikipedia users who agree with me.
I also objected to Xtra's NPOV. He himself is a supporter of the Liberal Party, and yet is the main editor of the Liberal Party Page on wikipedia. I find it hard to fathom how he can present a neutral, factual account of the same political party he himself admires.
Finally, user Xtra has posted factually innaccurate and offensive comments on his talk page about homosexual rights. According to him, homosexuals have many "rights" under the liberal party and should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. According to him, gays do not want civil rights including gay marriage, stating: "marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda" which is an insult to gay rights in Australia. This is not his comment to make when he is a social conservative, and cannot possibly know what civil rights gay activists are seeking.
He also insists that I only use partial truths, a further insult. The Liberal Party have indeed blocked any hope of a gay marriage ban under the notion that marriage is a contract to reproduce, which I linked to here. This is fat, There is also a move by the liberal party to have a discussion about the legality of abortion, and won't stop a private members bill. Note that this parliamentary discussion is solely initiated by the Liberal Party, which contradicts Xtra's claim.
There is also false information about immigration. The current Liberal Party Leader has previously stated his racially motivated anti-Asian immigration views [u]*N.B. reg' required to view source[/u]. And now immigrants are forced into detention centres, or a involved in a propaganda campaign such as the children overboard controversy and the [ http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/13/1108229835608.html wrongful imprisonment of an Australian woman] with a German Accent in an immigration detention centre.
I used the term Nazi as a simile to the Liberal Party's conservative stance on gay rights, which are very much alike, which resemble Xtra's beliefs, and was not aware that it was against the rules. Mea Culpa.
Xtra is also incorrect with his opinion over neoliberalism. He seems to think that Neoliberalism andsocial conervativism are mutually exclusive political beliefs, when they are not. By his own words he claims that there is a conservative group and a neoliberal group within the Liberal party, when in fact neoliberals are typically socially conservative individuals anyway.
Xtra was also unwilling to undergo mediation to settle this dispute, when offered numerous times by me. - PSYCH 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Finally, Xtra has misrepresented user Jwrosenzweig's words. He or she never ordered us to go to arbitration, but rather said "....Anyone who wants to further pursue matters with Xtra should either file an RFC concerning his conduct or else seek Arbitration." Xtra chose arbitration.
The best scenario, unfortunately, would be to block both me, PSYCH, and Xtra from Wikipedia. Xtra's behaviour is not what one would expect from a "member of The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and member of The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians."
- PSYCH 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)
- Accept. I believe this is bad enough to warrant hearing. -- Grunt ҈ 01:25, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Reject — take the earlier steps in dispute resolution before pursuing arbitration ➥the Epopt 04:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. This has dragged on for a while, and mediation is still broken (indeed, it appears that committee's chair suggested he take it here). That said, I strongly suggest that people making arbitration requests not place the request on a subpage. Ambi 04:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Accept for arbitration regarding content of the article Fred Bauder 14:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 15:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Nohat 07:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Avoid personal attacks
1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Editing from anonymous IPs
2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Proper use of article talk pages
3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.
- Passed 7-0.
[edit] Content of Wikipedia articles
4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Personal viewpoints
5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Personal attacks
1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see [26], [27], [28], [29] and "liar"
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Anonymous ips
2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Focus of controversy
3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and [30].
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Generalizations
4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Heated debate
5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated [39] "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Reaction by other editors
6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Continued debate by PSYCH
7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Australian Liberal Party policies
8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum, [40], [41] and [42]
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Insults and discourtesy toward PSYCH
9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense", "get a life" and [43]
- Passed 6-2.
[edit] Using the talk page as a forum
10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article, [44], [45], [46], [47] and [48]
- Passed 7-0.
[edit] Personal information regarding Xtra
11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added [49] and [50]
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Archiving recent posts
12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted [51], reverted, he archived it again.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Threat to revert
13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot." [52]
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Failure to research the topic and cite references
14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful [53]
- Passed 6-1.
[edit] Remedies
[edit] PSYCH - personal attack parole
1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.
- Passed 8-0.
