Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wiarthurhu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

[edit] Abstract

User Wiarthurhu (who lately signs as matador300) has expanded a content dispute on the F-14 Tomcat page into repeated violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. The content dispute in concern involves numerous violations of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Despite ongoing mediation and agreement to stop editing the content in question, user has abandoned the mediation while continuing to edit the content in dispute. This involves both a content dispute which was unresolved via mediation, and an ongoing user conduct dispute that he and Mmx1 unsuccessfully tried to lay aside during mediation.

[edit] History and User Conduct Issues

Mmx1's history with the user began on June 23, when Mmx1 requested citation for one of many edits that Wiarthurhu inserted in F-14 [1]. Over the next five days the two editors argued sources and engaged in an edit war. On the advice of User:Ericg, Mmx1 ceased editing the article [2], though Wiarthurhu took this as assent to his edits[3] and continued insertion of his POV. In addition, he spread the content in dispute to the F-111 and Robert McNamara articles.

Among these edits was a phrase [maneuverability was] the decisive factor in all previous air battles which is a drastic oversimplification of history betraying both bias and an amateur understanding of history. On July 28, Mmx1 called the user out on it[4], and investigated his contributions to see where else he may have inserted this bias. Mmx1 found two articles that consisted largely of personal opinion, and nominated them for AfD [5] [6].

After discovering these AfD's, Wiarthurhu takes it personally, believing them to be relatiatin for the F-14 edit dispute and begins launching personal attacks on Mmx1 and others who vote delete as outlined below under WP:CIV. He blames subsequent AfD's on Mmx1 even when the latter has no input. To avoid confrontation, Mmx1 declines to vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_strategy or the subsequent Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy after its move to wikispace, though the page was written as an attack on Mmx1. Wiarthrhu has repeatedly taken AfD's personally, verbally harrasing people who AfD his articles and generally taking ownership of his edits. He has engaged in some egregious violations of WP policy in deleting both AFD tags and AFD listings, as well as an egregious copyright violation that he disguised as an "oil paint interpretation".

When an RfM was posted, Wiarthurhu aggressively assented with "bring it on, baby", and rewriting it from a content dispute neutral to users into its current form, [7] which posits it in win/loss terms for each user.

Wiarthurhu also presents his credentials and begins to deride Mmx1's, eventually concluding that Mmx1 has had no education and has a deficient IQ, as outlined below under WP:NPA violations (though Mmx1's Alma Mater is quite clearly posted on his user page).

During this time several dispute resolution steps were taken, which are outlined below. On July 7, Mmx1's request for a MedCabal case is accepted. The current page, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat, has been refactored by the mediator for readability but original statements are viewable at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-07 F-14 Tomcat/Archive1. Despite agreeing to stop editing the article[8] on 8 July at 0100, Wiarthrhu continues to edit both the article in question, but also spinoff articles [9] [History of the F-14 Tomcat] that he moved the disputed content to, VFAX, Operation Rolling Thunder, and General Dynamics F-111, which all contain content under dispute in the mediation, despite a request from the mediator that the both of us cease editing on any and all aviation-related articles. During this mediation and afterwards, Wiarthurhu made several insinuations about Mmx1's mental state, as outlined below under WP:NPA, even after being warned not to engage in personal attacks. Since mediation reached an impasse, and the evidence presented shows that Wiarthurhu was uninterested in the content dispute once he saw it was not a forum for arbiting the veracity of editors, Mmx1 brought this RfC.

[edit] Content Dispute

This is not the proper forum for content disputes and there are too many to list, but a few points must be made about the user's conduct from a content point of view:

  • Wiarthurhu repeatedly inserts unverified personal opinions. This is evident from the content of one of the deleted articles User:Wiarthurhu/List, now in user space, and his personal admission that his additions to Robert McNamara were "supposed to sound like a hit piece"
  • Wiarthurhu makes claims about sources that are unsubstantiated by the source.
  • [10] He claims that The FAS article cited by Mmx actually states that the swing wing gives more, not less maneuverability.. The mediator read the source[11] and found it stated nothing of the sort.
  • Inserts [agile] in the quote "Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter" [12]. The original quote does not have the word agile,[13] and the unwarranted insertion completely changes the meaning of the quote.
  • He claims that the F-14 has twice the range of the F/A-18E, whereas his source (one biased to F-14's) quotes a 500nm vs 350nm difference, which works out to ~42%.User_talk:Wiarthurhu#Substantiating_the_Claims
  • In the same section, he claims That article basically states that F-14 is a jillion times more aerodynamically efficient than any version of F-18. The article is [14] a defense of the F-14 by two of its principal proponents. A reading of the source will show it says nothing of the sort.
  • He claims that this RAND paper supports the assertion that the F-14 was an air superiority fighter. In Talk:F-14_Tomcat#Actually_reading_the_paper I explain how the paper says nothing of the sort, and implies the opposite to be true.
  • Furthermore, Wiarthurhu bases additional OR and speculation on those unsubstantiated claims, claiming this OR to be sourced.
  • Essentially, his statement "A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong" indicates that the only purpose of sources are to validate his opinion, not that his opinion is derived from sources.
  • If one reads the MedCabal page, one sees that Wiarthruhu repeatedly uses the VFAX as a synonym for the F-14, though sources state clearly that the program that resulted in the F-14 was the VFX, and the VFAX was a distinctly different spiritual predecessor. Despite being called out on this sleight of hand, he continues the deception.
  • When faced with contradicting sources, Wiarthurhu selects those that matches his personal opinion rather than making an objective evaluation of sources to reconcile differing POV.

Wiarthurhu claims credibility based on his training as an aeronautical engineer. As the content in dispute is of a historical, not technical nature, the relevant field is history, not engineering, and in history, truth is determined by sources and the careful evaluation of their reliability.

Now wiki does not deal in truth, but in verifiability, but the same principle applies here. To reconcile conflicting sources, the community must evaluate the reliability of sources and determine an NPOV way to reconcile them. Wiarthurhu's benchmark for reliability is agreement with him.

Mmx1 was initially civil and assumed good faith, as his first comments on the talk page indicate. But after seeing Wiarthurhu inserting blatantly and demonstratively false statements ([maneuverability was] the decisive factor in all previous air battles), (In Vietnam, and indeed the entire period up to the present, all actual combat has been in the same dogfight style as in Vietnam.[15]) that reveal rampant bias and serious misunderstanding of the subject matter, Mmx1 feels he was justified in rejecting the opinions of this editor, and it is on this basis (as well as that of Wiarthurhu's misquoting sources) that he made the inflammatory statements "misinformed crap" and other similar comments. Wiki is not a democracy, and editors who

  1. demonstrate an egregiously wrong understanding of the subject matter
  2. demonstrate egregious misquotation and misrepresentation of sources
  3. demonstrate an inability to discern between reliable sources, and are unwilling to acknowledge possible bias of primary sources
  4. claim that building model airplanes is an an essential resource about the aircraft the model is based on [16]

should not be accorded equal voice in editing articles, no matter how persistent their edits.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

  1. Deleting AfD tags [17]
  2. Deleting AfD entries from Deletion Log [18]
  3. Taking ownership of articles "Please ask me before you deface more of the WP again, I can give you hints on how not to ruin things."

Wikipedia:No original research

  1. Putting in self-referential paragraphs about errors in previous editions of the wiki article[19]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

  1. Inserting personal biases into wiki:
  • "It was supposed to sound like a hit-piece"
  • All contributions to User:Wiarthurhu/List, moved from articlespace after AfD. Not saying that POV doesn't belong in wiki, but these uncited and often very informal opinions are clearly personal opinion.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

  1. Using newsgroups as sources [20]
  2. Using forum posts as sources [21]

Wikipedia:Citing sources

  1. In response to my pointing out that forum posts are not reliable sources, "A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong"

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

  1. Attacking other editors' educational background and intelligence[22]
  2. "he evidently has no formal non-compulsory education, has never consulted any books, magazines, videos or museums out side of "open source" citations, nor evidence of previous experience or publishing in any field"
  3. Calling editors voting in an AfD "Wiki-thugs" (as well as vote-spamming) [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
  4. Falsely making blanket accusations of vandalism "Mmx conduct is tatamount to vandalism"
  5. Calling AfD nominators "sore losers"
  6. Repeatedly makes insinuations about my mental state.
After being warned about such comments, user continues:

Wikipedia:Civility

  1. Declaring "Victory" in resolving edit conflicts [35] in agreeing to mediation, "Bring it on baby"
  2. Rewriting a content dispute into attacks on the other party in the dispute[36]
  3. Further rewriting that mediation to add "win/loss" conditions for editors[37]
  4. "WP is a fine piece of work if not for all the jerks who wreck it for everybody else"
  5. If WP sides with MMx, then the Antichrist has arrived and there is no hope"
  6. Attributing unrelated AfD's to me[38], then attacking the nom "Another reason I should put Bravada in my "bad guys" list."
  7. Daring editors to revert"I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"
  8. "Is there any way to put a muzzle on MMx?"
  9. "Well, take that, mmx1"
  10. "Remember bad guys get it in the end"

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

  1. Bringing the content dispute to the Wikipedia article [39]
  2. Creating an article to voice essay about gripes with wiki[40], now a how-to on inserting POV in wiki. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy. Moved from article space to wikispace after AfD, pending MfD. The article has now been deleted but the deletion discussions may be viewed at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia strategy.
  3. User_talk:Wiarthurhu#Image:F-14ConceptOil.jpg After getting an image tagged for deletion on copyright basis, reposting a cropped version under the deception of "oil painting interpretation".
  4. Creating an article Revival_of_the_Air_Superiority_Fighter about a Chapter of a Paper, complete with a copyright violation inclusion of part of the paper.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No original research
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  4. Wikipedia:Citing sources
  5. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  6. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  7. Wikipedia:Civility
  8. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Informal RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft [41]
  2. Informal RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history [42]
  3. Posted a Wikiquette alert [43] which attracted no attention.
  4. Appended this conflict to an existing notice on ANI regarding Wiarthurhu, also to no response.[44]
  5. Filed an RfM[45], which, due to rewriting by Wiarthruhu to greatly exceed scope of RfM by including user conduct dispute, attracted no responses.
  6. Finally, a request for a MedCabal Case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05_F-14_Tomcat was accepted on 7 July, proceeded for a week before reaching an impasse, and closed tonight with many issues unresolved.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. --Mmx1 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. --LWF 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Georgewilliamherbert 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. --Dual Freq 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Dabarkey 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --TomTheHand 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. --ApolloBoy 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Scheinwerfermann 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Oh Geezus, what the heck is going on here. I just try to correct a guy who think he's more competent than Flight Magazine and the engineering manager of the F-14, and I'm the one that gets painted as the meanie?

  • I'm not the one that got a article deleted that was the work of dozens of others. I'm not the one that wrote obscenities.
  • I'm not the one that went around following around the other one in edit wars whenever an edit happened.
  • I'm just pointing out that we need fewer users like mmx1 and I'm just trying to be a nice guy.
  • he's hammering on minutae and rules, and I'm just trying to get correct data into this thing.
  • Mmx1 would not even let the F-14 be listed under the air superiority fighter for pete's sake when it was the first fighter to be called that in the 1960s.
  • Mmx1 introced an edit in March 06 substantially reversing the meaning of the passage that the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable planes into a plane that he claimed was not even designed as maneuverability as one factor.
  • Mmx1 simply rejected all opposing citations, including Janes and Bob Kress engineering manager and F-14 test pilots
  • Mmx1 did not present one piece of contradicting evidence. He constructed a point of view from ommission of infomation.
  • Mmx1 did not introduce any evidence besides two open source articles. I did several web and newsgroup sweeps, several books, videos, and even took a trip to dig up actual magazines from the Seattle Public Library from 1966 and 1969.
  • Mmx1 did not present any evidence of credentials, not even the alma mater he now claims to have.
  • Mmx1 is the one who clearly shows an inability to use sources to support his position or contradict an opponent's position.
  • If I were a perfect person, I'd just let Mmx1 go on his merry way, but I don't mind standing up to bullies
  • I'm a new user unfamiliar with things like WP:whatever and what you can and cannot do, so please give me a little time to get familiar with how things work around here.
  • Unlike Mmx1, I have not posted incorrect information, certainly not of the magnitude of erasing any mention of the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, and I have not committed logical errors of the magnitude F-14 was designed to carry Phoenix, therefore F-14 is not designed to be maneuverable.
  • MMx1 continues to hold beliefs that are incorrect such as the F-14 was not the VFAX. The picture of the F-14 model on MATS clearly says VFAX. Mmx1 has done no research on the history of F-111B, VFAX or VFX. I have solved the puzzle, and am being punished for bringing the real story to light.
  • I've committed errors and I will be happy (well, not happy but whatever) to be held accountable, but this whole picture appears to be that Mmx is a sore loser as he admits the F-14 was designed to be maneuverable and is an air superiority fighter by anybody's definition, despite his attempts to deny all sources and contrary evidence, at least he was agreeable to a mediator.
  • Mmx1 has too much time and I don't have the time to go point by point, anyone who looks at this has to look at the quality of Mmx's rather minimal research and logic, and the extent that I've gone to back up my assertions, and build up what was already a very large F-14 page before I ever got my edits into it.
  • But it was an incorrect page because of Mmx, I hope that somebody else out there recognizes the value of somebody who had the energy and stamina to stand up to Mmx1 and correct the error on F-14 and other swing wing and air superiority pages. Otherwise it will simply revert to Mmx who simply makes it impossible for anyone to oppose him since he accepts no citations, easily dismisses any citation as "biased" or "invalid" and creates his own fromr sources that don't support his position or even take an opposite position (like the rand paper which includes the F-14 among 4 air superiority fighters). He dismisses any credentials, including Janes Defence (which said the F-111B was cancelled because it couldn't dogfight) yet claims he is the ultimate source on aircraft. The only new sourcs he uses are the ones I brought into the conversation. If people think we need more editors like Mmx1 and fewer like myself, god help us all. --matador300 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to post a formal counter-complaint against Mmx1, but his conduct has certainly ruined the experience for WP for me, and probably many other people. --matador300 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting to address these comments:

User Wiarthurhu (who lately signs as matador300) has expanded a content dispute on the F-14 Tomcat page into repeated violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. The content dispute in concern involves numerous violations of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. (ditto for Mmx1) Despite ongoing mediation and agreement to stop editing the content in question, user has abandoned the mediation while continuing to edit the content in dispute. (edited content outside of F-14) This involves both a content dispute which was unresolved via mediation,(actually on most points, it was agreed Mmx1 was flat out wrong) and an ongoing user conduct dispute that he and Mmx1 unsuccessfully tried to lay aside during mediation. (

[edit] History and User Conduct Issues

Mmx1's history with the user began on June 23, when Mmx1 requested citation for one of many edits that Wiarthurhu inserted in F-14 [46]. Over the next five days the two editors argued sources and engaged in an edit war. On the advice of User:Ericg, Mmx1 ceased editing the article [47], though Wiarthurhu took this as assent to his edits[48] and continued insertion of his POV. In addition, he spread the content in dispute to the F-111 and Robert McNamara articles. (It's cited, verifiable information, Mmx1's viewpoint, that hte F-111B was not killed and the F-14 started becauseof agility issues is flat out incorrect, and the reason for changing Mmx1's incorrect, unverifiable edits)

Among these edits was a phrase [maneuverability was] the decisive factor in all previous air battles which is a drastic oversimplification of history betraying both bias and an amateur understanding of history. On July 28, Mmx1 called the user out on it[49], and investigated his contributions to see where else he may have inserted this bias. (This statement is largely true, and can easiliy be edited to, and I did change to "one of", this is a pretty hysterical reaction given the huge incorrectness of Mmx's incorretly formed opinion that the F-14 was not even designed to be maneuverable, which is contradicted by several sources. Mmx1 relied only only the two open source artles at the bottom of the F-14 article, and additionally, sourced found by me which he unexplicably was able to turn their theses on their head to "support" his position that the F-14 was not only not designed to be maneuverable, but cannot even be called an air superority fighter, even though the Navy and Grumman are quoted as saying exactly that in a 1969 flight magazine which Mmx1 still has not ackknowledged) Mmx1 found two articles that consisted largely of personal opinion (he tracked down my edits and decided he didn't like what else he found on the page, and in gross disregard for the accumulated effort and labor of others decided to eliminate them too), and nominated them for AfD [50] [51].

After discovering these AfD's, Wiarthurhu takes it personally, believing them to be relatiatin for the F-14 edit dispute and begins launching personal attacks on Mmx1 (And this Rfc isn't a personal attack??) and others who vote delete as outlined below under WP:CIV. He blames subsequent AfD's on Mmx1 (Very similar form and style, except autos) even when the latter has no input. To avoid confrontation, Mmx1 declines to vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_strategy or the subsequent Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy after its move to wikispace, though the page was written as an attack (It was written as a complaint of tacitcs of Mmx1, which he has not renounced). Wiarthrhu has repeatedly taken AfD's personally, verbally harrasing people who AfD his articles and generally taking ownership of his edits.(Mmx1 was taking ownership of any aircraft article wiarthurhu edited within 10 min of any edit, including movies) He has engaged in some egregious violations of WP policy in deleting both AFD tags and AFD listings, as well as an egregious copyright violation that he disguised as an "oil paint interpretation".(That is a Grumman / Navy promotional picture usable under "fair use", the processing merely eliminated screening effects which may be property of flight magazine.) (This picture also proves beyond any shadow of a doubt Mmx1 completely mistaken impression that the F-15 was the first use of the word air superiority fighter, a completely unverifiable statement.)

When an RfM was posted, Wiarthurhu aggressively assented with "bring it on, baby", and rewriting it from a content dispute neutral to users into its current form, [52] which posits it in win/loss terms for each user. (yes, but Mmx1 essentially admitted to being incorrect on most counts, the F-14 was designed to be maneuverable, and was called an air superiority fighter before there was an F-15 concept)

Wiarthurhu also presents his credentials and begins to deride Mmx1's, eventually concluding that Mmx1 has had no education and has a deficient IQ, as outlined below under WP:NPA violations (though Mmx1's Alma Mater is quite clearly posted on his user page).(Mmx1 presented no credentials whatsover to show that he was better qualified to judge his POV is better than wiarthurhu, alma mater Columbia was not presented until this statement here) Mmx1 also claims to be a better authority on the F-14 than either Charlie Brown, F-14 test pilot, or Bob Kress, engineering manager of the F-14 and "disbelieves" anything on a TV video, even interviews of actual F-14 development personell. Mmx1 consistently dismissed every submitted source as "biased" or "unreliable" including publications of Janes Defence, while not presenting even one direct piece of evidence contracting any of my verifiable claims. He contructed "F-14 was not designed maneuverable" from the absence in an article which stated the F-14 was design to carry the Phoenix as an interceptor", which is not logically true, and contradicted by both tesetimonly of Grummn personell, VFAX requirements, Bill Gunston, and Flight Magazine.)


During this time several dispute resolution steps were taken, which are outlined below. On July 7, Mmx1's request for a MedCabal case is accepted. The current page, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat, has been refactored by the mediator for readability but original statements are viewable at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-07 F-14 Tomcat/Archive1. Despite agreeing to stop editing the article[53] on 8 July at 0100, Wiarthrhu continues to edit both the article in question, but also spinoff articles [54] [History of the F-14 Tomcat] that he moved the disputed content to(What's disputed content? There is nothing moved onto these other articles that is not verifiable or incorrect, in contrast to Mmx's unverifiable, incorrect contributions, this following around is consistent with stalking) , VFAX, Operation Rolling Thunder, and General Dynamics F-111, which all contain content under dispute in the mediation, despite a request from the mediator that the both of us cease editing on any and all aviation-related articles. During this mediation and afterwards, Wiarthurhu made several insinuations about Mmx1's mental state, as outlined below under WP:NPA, even after being warned not to engage in personal attacks. (It is not a personal attack to note conduct that involves inflated self worth, and denigrating the value of the most highly valued research standards such as Aviation Week, janes and Flight International and Grumman personell, it is unfortunate is not possible to speak about such behavior in medical terms without it being called an attack) Since mediation reached an impasse, and the evidence presented shows that Wiarthurhu was uninterested in the content dispute once he saw it was not a forum for arbiting the veracity of editors, Mmx1 brought this RfC.

[edit] Content Dispute

This is not the proper forum for content disputes and there are too many to list, but a few points must be made about the user's conduct from a content point of view:

  • Wiarthurhu repeatedly inserts unverified personal opinions.(Everything I put in is verifiable by various sources, rather than just the two open source cited by MMx1) This is evident from the content of one of the deleted articles User:Wiarthurhu/List, now in user space, and his personal admission that his additions to Robert McNamara were "supposed to sound like a hit piece"(Of course, it's critical of McNamara, how can anyone familiar with the F-111 not be critical of him??)
  • Wiarthurhu makes claims about sources that are unsubstantiated by the source.(Mmx1 is the one who constructs "F-14 not designed to be maneuverable" and "F-14 is not air superiority fighter" with no supporting references.
  • [55] He claims that The FAS article cited by Mmx actually states that the swing wing gives more, not less maneuverability..
(Here's the quote http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14.htm "In the latter role, the Tomcat's variable-sweep wings give the F-14 a combat maneuvering capability that could not have been achieved with a "standard" fixed planform wing. " I got the refernce wrong. Nowhere in the article does it state the aircraft was not designed to be maneuverable. This only futher demonstrates Mmx1's poor analysis capability)

The mediator read the source[56] and found it stated nothing of the sort.

  • Inserts [agile] in the quote "Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter" [57]. The original quote does not have the word agile,[58] and the unwarranted insertion completely changes the meaning of the quote. (It's a perfectly valid interpretation of his statement, it is highly unlikely that t/w ratio was the only capability the vice admiral was concerned about)
  • He claims that the F-14 has twice the range of the F/A-18E, whereas his source (one biased to F-14's) quotes a 500nm vs 350nm difference, which works out to ~42%.User_talk:Wiarthurhu#Substantiating_the_Claims(This is not a part of the original dispute, but nevertheless the range / payload is consistent with what Kress said in is article)
  • In the same section, he claims That article basically states that F-14 is a jillion times more aerodynamically efficient than any version of F-18. The article is [59] a defense of the F-14 by two of its principal proponents. A reading of the source will show it says nothing of the sort.(That statement was actually based on Bill Gunston's statement in a another book, which explains the dramatic 1.5-2.0X improvement in range payload of the F-14 over the F-18E. Mmx1's statements seem to indicate a severe pro-F-18 and anti-F-14 bias.
  • He claims that this RAND paper supports the assertion that the F-14 was an air superiority fighter. In Talk:F-14_Tomcat#Actually_reading_the_paper I explain how the paper says nothing of the sort, and implies the opposite to be true. (This is utterly ridiculous, and I am astonished that Mmx still defends the position the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter when the 1969 Flight Magazine article should have settled this for any reasonable person, as it did for the mediator.
  • Furthermore, Wiarthurhu bases additional OR and speculation on those unsubstantiated claims, claiming this OR to be sourced.
  • Essentially, his statement "A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong" indicates that the only purpose of sources are to validate his opinion, not that his opinion is derived from sources.(This is a far cry from dismissing ANY source contrary to Mmx1's POV as biased, indeed I am more concerned that a fact is correct than whether it is easily verified from internet sources)
  • If one reads the MedCabal page, one sees that Wiarthruhu repeatedly uses the VFAX as a synonym for the F-14, though sources state clearly that the program that resulted in the F-14 was the VFX, and the VFAX was a distinctly different spiritual predecessor. Despite being called out on this sleight of hand, he continues the deception. (This is not a deception, the Grumman 303 was written to the VFAX, Mmx is still mistaken on this even though I have supplied the complete research background articeles on this talk page This link clearly shows a picture of an F-14 model labeled VFAX)
  • When faced with contradicting sources, Wiarthurhu selects those that matches his personal opinion rather than making an objective evaluation of sources to reconcile differing POV.(this is ridiculous. I accept facts as face value. When Mmx1 refined a dogfighting entry to cite a rearward firing missle, I assented that this was correct and an improvement)

Wiarthurhu claims credibility based on his training as an aeronautical engineer. As the content in dispute is of a historical, not technical nature, the relevant field is history, not engineering, and in history, truth is determined by sources and the careful evaluation of their reliability. (Mmx1 again walks away from the issue that he has no credentials equal or superior to wiarthurhu that would lead him to be a more reliable source)

Now wiki does not deal in truth, but in verifiability, but the same principle applies here. To reconcile conflicting sources, the community must evaluate the reliability of sources and determine an NPOV way to reconcile them. Wiarthurhu's benchmark for reliability is agreement with him. (Mmx1 is the one who dismissed all sources as biased, yet relied primarily on faulty interpretation of two open source articles to form his POV that 1. F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable and 2. F-14 was not an air superiority fighter. I have conducted extenstive web searches, newgroup searches, watched a broadcast DVD, read countless magazine articles and books and even went to the Seattle Public Library to get actual screen captures of actual 1960s articles. This is precisely the sort of research WP should have more of. Mmx1's shoddy research and faulty mis-logic is precisely the sort of editor I have encountered multiple times on WP - see the assentign signers for examples - that WP should have LESS of.)

Mmx1 was initially civil ("misinformed crap" "made up shit"??)and assumed good faith, as his first comments on the talk page indicate. But after seeing Wiarthurhu inserting blatantly and demonstratively false statements ([maneuverability was] the decisive factor in all previous air battles), ((This is not the major issue, F-14 design was, and Mmx1 asssents I was correct)) (In Vietnam, and indeed the entire period up to the present, all actual combat has been in the same dogfight style as in Vietnam.[60]) that reveal rampant bias ((Rampant bias? It's true isn't it??) and serious misunderstanding of the subject matter,((Who has a serious misunderstanding? Look at the quality of Mmx1's edits in air superiority fighter - it's a mess) Mmx1 feels he was justified in rejecting the opinions of this editor, and it is on this basis (as well as that of Wiarthurhu's misquoting sources) ((Mmx1 is the one that says a chapter on air superiority fighters that includes the F-14 somehow means it's not an A/S fighter, and concludes from two open source articles, one of which states a swing-wing aids maneuvering that would not be possible with a fixed wing that the F-14 was not so designed, even after being informed of interviews by the F-14 designers themselves. I have misquoted nothing))that he made the inflammatory statements ((This is what Mmx, not wiarthur stated: "misinformed crap" and other similar comments)). Wiki is not a democracy, and editors who

  1. demonstrate an egregiously wrong understanding of the subject matter(Such as 1. F-14 is not an air superority fighter 2. Air superiority fighter was first coined for F-14 3. F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable, that's 3 gross incorrect, unverifiable edits for Mmx1)
  2. demonstrate egregious misquotation and misrepresentation of sources (Such as article including F-14 as one of 4 A/S fighters means it is not one, and two open source articles, including one that states swing wings aid maneuverability "proves" F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable, and statment by vice admiral that F-111 had insufficient thrust to be a fighter proves F-111B was not killed because of lack of agility)
  3. demonstrate an inability to discern between reliable sources,(Such as dismissing Aviation Week, Janes Defence, Grumman personell, US Navy web site) and are unwilling to acknowledge possible bias of primary sources (Unwilling to accept validity of any source)
  4. claim that building model airplanes is an an essential resource about the aircraft the model is based on [61]

should not be accorded equal voice in editing articles, no matter how persistent their edits.(That was a bit of a joke, but nevertheless is an additional credential as it does aid understanding)

Wikipedia:No original research

  1. Putting in self-referential paragraphs about errors in previous editions of the wiki article[62]

(It's verifiable fact that many users agree with Mmx1 original assertion the F-14 was not desgined to be maneuverable. It's also verifiable that WP was one of, if not the only, verifiable source agreeing with that opinion, primarly becuase Mmx1 himself created the offending incorrect edit which I stepped into in trying to correct it. It is not clear since his agreement in the original mediation whether Mmx1 still agrees that he was incorrect to edit into WP that the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable, and that the F-14 was the first post 1965 air superiority fighter, as stated by Grumman, Navy, and flight international (all of which Mmx1 does not accept because they are "biased" sources in his view evidently)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

  1. Inserting personal biases into wiki:
  • "It was supposed to sound like a hit-piece"
  • All contributions to User:Wiarthurhu/List, moved from articlespace after AfD. Not saying that POV doesn't belong in wiki, but these uncited and often very informal opinions are clearly personal opinion.((All edits were verifiable fact, not just opinion))

Wikipedia:Verifiability

((Where is it stated that newsgroups cannot be used as sources? In some cases, the ONLY place where the VFAX spec can be found was on a newsgroups, and the edit indicates it is believed to be correct.))
  1. Using newsgroups as sources [63]
  2. Using forum posts as sources [64]

Wikipedia:Citing sources

  1. In response to my pointing out that forum posts are not reliable sources, "A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong"
((This is primarily an issue of MMx tactic to disallow contradictign sources, not whether they are correct or not)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

  1. Attacking other editors' educational background and intelligence[65]
(I did not attack, I only compared, and demonstrated that Mmx1 did not demonstrate ANY credentials)
  1. "he evidently has no formal non-compulsory education, has never consulted any books, magazines, videos or museums out side of "open source" citations, nor evidence of previous experience or publishing in any field"(Mmx1 with the exception of revealing his college affliatino has not contradicted any of these statements, and I'm still waiting.)
  2. Calling editors voting in an AfD "Wiki-thugs" (as well as vote-spamming)
(As far as I can tell these people contributed to deleting an article they had no interest in, many of them the majority of their edits is in deleting articles they don't care for. The system is broken when a half dozen people can sink an article that is valued by hundreds who are not aware that the article is in danger since they don't visit it every day, but hundreds of people look through the deletion list--matador300 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

[66] :#Falsely making blanket accusations of vandalism "Mmx conduct is tatamount to vandalism"((Yes is it vandalism if Mmx1 just wants to remove a valid article and it doesn't really improve anything))

  1. Calling AfD nominators "sore losers"((That is certainly how I would interpret deleting an entire article after being faced with admitting the F-14 design criterion and air superiority fighter
  2. Repeatedly makes insinuations about my mental state.
After being warned about such comments, user continues:

Wikipedia:Civility

  1. Declaring "Victory" in resolving edit conflicts [67] in agreeing to mediation, "Bring it on baby"
  2. Rewriting a content dispute into attacks on the other party in the dispute[68]
  3. Further rewriting that mediation to add "win/loss" conditions for editors[69]
  4. "WP is a fine piece of work if not for all the jerks who wreck it for everybody else"
  5. If WP sides with MMx, then the Antichrist has arrived and there is no hope"(Thank god, the mediator agreed with me on all points)
  6. Attributing unrelated AfD's to me[70], then attacking the nom were in the sasme style, find this is still consistent with stalking) title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_automotive_flops&diff=prev&oldid=63833898 "Another reason I should put Bravada in my "bad guys" list."(stalking again)
  7. Daring editors to revert"I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"(And Mmx1 does believe himself to be more reliable than a F-14 test pilot)
  8. "Is there any way to put a muzzle on MMx?"(This guy has too much time)
  9. "Well, take that, mmx1"
  10. "Remember bad guys get it in the end"(And justice will come in the end)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

  1. Bringing the content dispute to the Wikipedia article [71]
  2. Creating an article to voice essay about gripes with wiki[72], now a how-to on inserting POV in wiki. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy. Moved from article space to wikispace after AfD, pending MfD. The article has now been deleted but the deletion discussions may be viewed at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_strategy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia strategy.
  3. User_talk:Wiarthurhu#Image:F-14ConceptOil.jpg After getting an image tagged for deletion on copyright basis, reposting a cropped version under the deception of "oil painting interpretation".(Cropped version deletes Flight Magazine content caption. Oil effect eliminates screen printing artifact which may be copyright .Image is Navy / Grumman promotional picture which is fair use)
  4. Creating an article Revival_of_the_Air_Superiority_Fighter about a Chapter of a Paper, complete with a copyright violation inclusion of part of the paper.(Short excerpt is not a copyright violation, it can be rewritten)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No original research(Mmx1 is guilty of F-14 not maneuverable OR]
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view(Mmx1 clearly biased towards F-18, against F-14)
  3. Wikipedia:Verifiability(Mmx1 put up unverifiable statement A/S coined for F-15)
  4. Wikipedia:Citing sources(Mmx1 cited no contradicting sources to contradict claim F-14 designed to be maneuverable, nor supporting sources for his claim)
  5. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  6. Wikipedia:No personal attacks(Ok, I'm sorrrrry)
  7. Wikipedia:Civility("misinformed crap")


{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view of Abcdefghijklm

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

No user should be entitled to remove *fD tags without either improving the article, or discussing theremoval on the article talk page. User:Mmx1 seems to have made a fair attempt at trying to handle this dispute. The accused did not handle the content dispute well, however we have to assume good faith. I believe the user in question does not cite sources correctly. However instead of warning the user, we should try to teach the user what is an acceptable source and what is not. I also believe that the Mediation Cabal did not resolve all of the disputes. I would reccommed that you either call in the Mediation Committee, or try and talk more to the user.

[edit] users who endorse this summary

  1. Abcdefghijklm 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of JChap

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is an edit war gone nuclear (or, perhaps in this case, aerial). It seems that the problem started when each party assumed they knew the material and engaged in a dick-measuring contest about credentials rather than concentrating on first finding sources and then editing the article. The edits came first and then, when challenged, they went to find sources to back up their position. This is alibied OR. If the editors had done research first and just written from their sources, they might not have felt so defensive when challenged about accuracy. There is clearly some fault on both sides.

However, Wiarthurhu's conduct after the MedCab was invoked is especially troubling. The MedCab had asked the editors to refrain from editing certain articles until the dispute was resolved. It believed that this would assist in resolving the problem. Wiarthurhu agreed to this, but then broke his word. As a result, the MedCab case had to be abandoned and the time that went into it was wasted. Wiarthurhu should understand that on the wiki, as in life, people will judge you by how you keep your word. Gaining the respect of your fellow editors is more important than having "your" edits appear in the article.

[edit] users who endorse this summary

  1. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well said. -/- Warren 06:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of ApolloBoy

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have been involved with several "run-ins" with Wiarthurhu, and during his disputes with me he exhbited similar behavior. He acts incivil with me, has attacked me, uses my age against me (I'm 16 going on 17), and calls me a "bad guy". I'd list links, but I don't want this RfC to be about my disputes. If anyone's interested they can go look up both our talk pages and contributions. I think Wiarthurhu's main problems seem to be that he doesn't understand or refuses to understand Wikipedia policies (as evidenced by his "a source is a source" comment), and sometimes he can't seem to discern between facts and his opinions. He also seems to misread material and twists it to what he wants to hear. Although I was never involved with Mmx1's dispute, I have observed it through talk pages, and I have not been impressed with Wiarthurhu's behavior regarding that.

I'm not quite sure what we should do with Wiarthurhu at this point. He is quite capable of making beneficial edits (and has several times), but his behavior and disregard for Wikipedia policies deeply concerns me... --ApolloBoy 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] users who endorse this summary

  1. --ApolloBoy 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Scheinwerfermann 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --SteveBaker 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Scheinwerfermann

Wiarthurhu seems to have extreme and violent difficulty accepting evidence that his position is not correct, repeatedly digging up sources of questionable or zero veracity and using them to justify repeated insertion of his guesses, opinions and preferences -- even when an authoritative source has been cited refuting Wiarthurhu's assertion. It appears less important for Wiarthurhu to strive for accuracy than it is for his text be contained in articles, and that does not seem compliant (or, indeed, compatible) with Wikipedia's intent. The lengths he will go to in an effort to have his text included are fairly spectacular, e.g. impugning all Wikipedia editors except himself, and all citations except his own, and positing imaginative scenarios to buttress his assertions with no apparent basis in fact, e.g.: I see, on the basis of my previous experience with shoddy Wikipedia research standards, that there is a way that none of these documents contradict another. As 50 years explains, the program was started to replace the K-cars. Then planners decided to NOT replace the Reliant, at least not right off the bat. Thus the statement to dealers that it will replace the car just departed, not the K-car[...] (from talk:Plymouth Acclaim).

He typically responds to civil, factually based discussion with vitriol, attacks and repeated reversion to his pet version of an article. See, for example, talk:Plymouth Acclaim and talk:Dodge Spirit. He has posted a manifesto (or screed) on user:Wiarthurhu in which he implies that his possession of a degree from MIT imbues his viewpoints with veracity. More troubling than that nonsequitur is the overall tone of the manifesto, which looks disturbingly like an assertion that Wiarthurhu is right, and the rest of the world is wrong. More alarming yet is the ease with which he engages in personal attacks and provocation on his own User talk:Wiarthurhu talk page as well as others' talk pages and in edit summaries (Amongst copious examples, see "Go ahead. Make my day."", Plymouth Acclaim, 23:17, 2006 July 28). This is not appropriate, civilised or helpful behaviour.

Furthermore, he regularly quotes his flawed understanding of Wiki rules and definitions as justification for his edits, but does not hold himself to the editing standards he sets for others. He seems not to understand the difference between original research and sources-based research, for he frequently accuses of the former those who have clearly done the latter. In addition, he apparently does not wish to acknowledge that the struggle towards accuracy in an encyclopædia article is not a popularity contest or counting game to see who can come up with the greatest number of citations supporting his particular pet viewpoint. The notion of source quality vs. source quantity appears lost on him, and the effective result is that with his repeated reversions and rants he makes undue work for other editors who are striving for the greatest possible article accuracy with the highest-quality sources. It does not appear he is ignorant of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, rules and goals. Rather, it seems he chooses to disregard them and/or twist them to suit his expedient desires. Scheinwerfermann 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum: abuse, threats

Wiarthurhu's difficulty behaving coöperatively seems to be worsening. In talk:Plymouth Acclaim, he has written the following:

empowered by truth, justice, and God, I hereby declare this issue changed on the basis of new information and new blood. Things are going to change around here. People are going to get some manners, they're going to be shown how to do real research like going to the library or buying books or watching videos, and how to do non-faulty logic [...] You will be nice, or else.

Furthermore, he continues to assert that his edits are of greater value and/or veracity than those of what he calls "amateur" editors. Here on Wikipedia, there is no such distinction as he seems to perceive. His edits, in short, are of no greater or lesser value on here than are those of any other editor.

Wiarthurhu would do well to look carefully at his behaviour in general on Wikipedia. It seems his almost every edit sparks a controversy which he evidently takes delight in escalating. That is really not helpful to the goal of Wikipedia, which is not to aggrandize oneself or foment baseless squabbles, but to strive for articles of the greatest possible veracity, accuracy and precision.

[edit] Addendum: Continued vandalism, interference, bullying

It is apparent to me that Wiarthurhu is actively choosing to pervert Wikipedia policies, guidelines and rules, substituting his own creative interpretations for their actual letter and intent, and frequently disregarding them altogether. He has received numerous general and specific warnings (e.g. [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] ) regarding his behaviour, all of which he has pointedly ignored, and in fact he has increased the frequency and intensity of his threatening, abusive, vandalistic and belligerent behaviour (e.g. [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]).

In addition, he continues to adhere to his view, unsupported by any Wiki policy, that his age, educational status, and professional affiliations imbue him and his edits with especial veracity and priority, often taunting or adopting a smarmy pretense of coöperative language that belies his actual intent and behaviour, e.g. [84], [85], and especially [86] in which I had to laboriously clean up Wiarthurhu's deliberate, extreme and deceptive vandalism of my comments and others in the talk page for this RfC. It seems this particular bit of vandalism was done in such a manner as to make it difficult to discern from the history page.

Wiarthurhu evidently views it as his mission to bend other editors to his will, or, in his words, to tame them. He has lately taken to making up nonexistent Wiki rules (e.g. claiming that a warning to stop poor behaviour or risk an editing block is a personal attack, and "issuing a citation" for the fabricated infraction). None of this is compatible with Wikipedia's policies, goals or behavioural standards.

Scheinwerfermann 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Scheinwerfermann 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mmx1 23:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. ApolloBoy 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SteveBaker 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. LWF 19:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum: Coöperative behaviour seen from Wiarthurhu

See talk:Plymouth Acclaim#Compromise. Wiarthurhu has made what appears to be a genuine effort at adopting a conciliatory and appropriately coöperative attitude towards this particular debate. That's definitely much better and more productive than what went before. Let us all hope to see more of this grownup behaviour and less of the vitriolic tantrums that seem to repeatedly run him into conflicts with other Wikipedians (and Chrysler dealer employees, as it seems...?) Scheinwerfermann 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View of User:Karrmann

Wairthu has continually attacked me, and misbehaved. I have gotten in many conflicts with him, many which I regretially broke Wikipedia policies. He gets me so mad, that all I can do is swear. He attacks me because of my young age (I'm 14), though ApolloBoy sticks up for me to him. He keeps acting like since i'm 14, I don't know anything, and he is the gospel of truth. He goes and attacks me, making me sound like i'm Hitler and he's Jesus, and continually calle me a bully. I have gotten in an edit war over a picture of the AMC Machine, which I came very colse to breaking the 3RR, if I hadn't been warned. He goes in everywhere I go attacking me, making me sound like the bad guy, acting like i'm breaking a bunch of rules (I agree, I have when dealing with him because of anger) and he has put me on his black lst. He has age discriminated me (similar to User:Orphan1, who is now blocked indef) and overall, he reminds me of the punky teenagers that pick on me in the schoolyard. He always gets in edit wars, and he just can't seem to follow wikipedia rules. If he continues, I will get him face to face with the Abrition Comittee. Karrmann 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of User:SteveBaker

I came into this late - and have not been involved at all with the various disputes on aircraft. I got swept in via the Automotive pages - specifically AMC Matador. Until today I was unaware of this mediation effort and have completely independently started another. Having read this dispute, it is very clear to me that what we have here is not a dispute about particular content - but a rogue user. Wiarthurhu is quite simply impossible to work with. The issues on AMC Matador revolve around a photograph that Wiarthurhu took of a pinewood derby car (a toy carved out of wood and hand painted). On the photo's summary page he makes it clear that he made this toy himself. His repeated efforts to get this photograph onto at least two pages unrelated to toys or pinewood derby are beyond all reason. I can only guess that he is guilty of WP:Vanity and wants this photo featured in Wikipedia come-what-may. Anyway, on AMC Matador, his efforts to keep this photo in there have violated WP:Vanity, WP:NOR, WP:3RR and arguably WP:NPA since he falsely accuses me and others of vandalism when we remove it and lambasts us on his user page. There have been many complaints about him on many pages in widely separated fields and from many users who only know him from one incident. Whilst an isolated problem might not be his fault - it would be utterly surprising if one user were to be victim of so many disparate and separate attacks. Whilst I hate to say this - I think he needs a prolonged and enforced Wikibreak. SteveBaker 11:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum:

Wiarthurhu has now added the sin of editing and deleting other peoples comments from Talk pages. Check the history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles where he has deleted comments - and edited/rearranged some of my previous posts to the degree where it's pretty much impossible to sort out the resulting mess. This has got to stop. SteveBaker 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Scheinwerfermann 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. ApolloBoy 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of User:Tmalmjursson

As someone who sits here completely independent of this case, I have to say firstly to SteveBaker that Wiarthurhu has been in violation of WP:NPA, but it looks like you have a bit of a problem being WP:CIVIL. Telling him to "Go away and stay away!" on his talk page seems to be quite rude in my mind. Maybe he has caused trouble, maybe he has been a pain in the backside, but that doesn't give you the right to square on him for breaking one rule, and then you go and break another by being uncivil. But I firmly belive that instead of lambasting him to the point where he is practcally defenceless, you should be listening to some of the things he is saying. Since when, for example, is adding a fair use image to an article considered to be a problem? I think I will sit back and watch how this one falls, but if he does come up for arbitration, I make it clear that if needs be, I will be happy to assist him in prepping a case for the arbcom. Everyone needs chances in life, and I bet some of you on here have broken the rules (not necessarily on here, but somewhere) more than once in your lives. Or is WP now another area where "3 Strikes and you're out" applies??? Thor Malmjursson 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Mediator's outside view

As the mediator in the listed dispute, I entered the dispute after Mmx1's RfM was not accepted in a timely fashion and a subsequent MedCab case was filed. Initally, both parties to the dispute were willing to mediate through the Mediation Cabal. Both parties initally made a good faith effort to mediate the issues at hand, and four original content compromises were reached, including one that Wiarthurhu specifically requested involving air superiority in 1969 according to Flight International Magazine. Throughout the mediation, I saw that the parties were trading comments back and forth on their respective talk pages, the mediation case page, and the article(s) in dispute. I asked both users to stop trading comments on their talk pages at several times through the mediation. After three days of reading their submitted source material, we settled four content compromises and moved on to settle a compromise in regards to variable-sweep wings. At this time, I noted that the parties were still trading comments in talk pages, in addition, Wiarthurhu moved the content dispute on to new articles that were not originally involved but dealt with the content that we were specifically addressing. At this point, I requested that both parties stop editing aircraft or aircraft-related articles. Mmx1 complied with the request, Wiarthurhu did not and proceeded to edit eleven separate aircraft articles (five of which directly coincided with the content in dispute) and engaged in three separate personal attacks on unrelated pages. One of these personal attacks directly involved Mmx, the other disputant. It was at this time that Mmx filed his Request for Comment.

Wiarthurhu continues to exhibit signs of uncivil behavior to this day. After a message he left on my talk page here, a message he left for LWF hereand my attempt at a civil description of the facts at hand in a brief manner here, he answered me on his talk page with this, further showing the distressing behavior cited by several others above this section.

In answer to Abcdefghijklm's statement above, I felt that as the assigned Mediation Cabal mediator, the mediation could not continue as one of the parties was no longer making a good faith effort to contribute to the disputed article. In addition, after reviewing Wiarthurhu's contribution tree for the last 500 edits, he has continued to engage in behavior contrary to WP:NPA and WP:OWN, two policies which he agreed that he would comply with during the course of mediation. Further, the parts of the content dispute that were not solved have been referred back to the folks at WikiProject Aircraft and the individual editors on the F-14 article for review and development of a consensus.

I was really going to say more after the lastest exchange, but I am so over it. This issue is going to continue moving from step to step until, probably Wiarthurhu, ends up either blocked or before ArbCom. Don't say I didn't warn anyone.

For the Mediation Cabal, only endorsing my summary of the events,

CQJ 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.