Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators

Active
  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Mackensen
  • Morven
  • Paul August
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany
Inactive
  • Blnguyen
  • Jdforrester
  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality
  • Raul654

As of the opening of this case, 14 arbitrators were listed as active. However, Jdforreter, Raul654, FIcelloguy and BInguyen have been listed as inactive since the opening. Therefore the current tally is 10 active/majority of 6. Thatcher131 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Freedom skies' recent edits to Zen

I would like to call the Arbitration Committee's attention to Freedom skies' recent edits to Zen[1][2] which have provoked the following comments from other editors.

Saposcat: "needless," "largely irrelevant" and "bad writing"
Knverma: Freedom Skies, I have several comments on your edits. But first of all, if we cite sources for one point of view, there is no need to delete the citations for the opposing point of view. And there are at least some scholars that dispute whether the flower sermon legend is based on historical events.
Knverma (in reference to Freedom skies' "Early history in India" section): I don't see the purpose of this section. There is no discussion of any "history" or events that took place in India.
Knverma: the yoga connection seems to be over-emphasized; this can be discussed on the talk page
Knverma: as we are not really talking of what happened in India, it is better to merge this into the china section

For what it's worth, Knverma is of Indian extraction, not that an editor's ethnicity ought to be the least bit relevant; however, Freedom skies and Bakaman are clearly determined to make it an issue.

What is relevant is that this demonstrates Freedom skies' determination to push his POV and his continued contempt for WP:CONSENSUS.

JFD 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note Freedom skies' knee-jerk reversion of Saposcat and Knverma's edits with only the following discussion on the talk page: "Refrain from blanking sections or distorting citations. I've restored blanked material and will report any further blanking or distortion of sourced text."
This is how Freedom skies demonstrates his respect for WP:CIVILITY and WP:CONSENSUS and how he'll refrain from edit-warring?
If this is how Freedom skies behaves during an Arbitration regarding this very conduct, how do you think Freedom skies will act once the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee is off him?
I urge the Arbitration Committee to look at what Freedom skies is doing to Zen right now and how other editors are responding (e.g. "Freedom skies, you even reverted back some small typos that I had corrected.") and to take the appropriate measures which, as Freedom skies' recent behavior demonstrates, ought to be stronger than standard revert parole.
Nothing could demonstrate more unequivocally the insincerity of Freedom skies' promises to follow WP:CIVILITY and to refrain from disruptive edit-warring than returning to his characteristic incivility and knee-jerk reversions during this Arbitration.
JFD 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is more misrepresentation. Saposcat is versed in Buddhism and he just made the following changes:-

Previous version

Zen purports to lead it's adherents to insights akin to that mentioned by Śākyamuni Buddha in his Flower sermon. In blossom; Mahākāśyapa smiled faintly, and Śākyamuni Buddha picked that disciple as one who truly understood him and who was worth to be his succesor.<>Great religions of the world. Center for Distance Learning. Tarrant County College District<>

The world honored one spoke: "I posses the true Dharma eye, the marevlous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.<>Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895. page 9<f>

Saposcat's version

Within Zen, and thus from an emic perspective, the origins of Zen Buddhism are ascribed to what is called the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha is supposed to have passed on special insight to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. The sermon itself was a wordless one in which Śākyamuni merely held up a flower before the assembled disciples, among whom there was no reaction apart from Mahākāśyapa, who smiled. The smile is said to have signified Mahākāśyapa's understanding, and Śākyamuni acknowledged this by saying:

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.<>Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895. page 9<>

JFD misquote Saposcat. Saposcat allows for well known facts to be retained: another example would have been his permission to retain a well known koan. Adding it without reference sounds good enough to me. I knew that it was well known but thought I would add references just in case.

Kindly compare the versions and see if there is any difference in the information presented by me and Saposcat.

Mischief such as this will go unchecked and more edits such the following are likely to be made.

In face of such distortion of sources and blanking of section my reply was rv; further distortion of citations and blanking of sourced sections will be reported.

This entire arbitration process is based on trying to make every action I take look violent to have me banned.

See what the opposition writes in encyclopedias, see the edit summaries.

JFD claims that I reverted Saposcat's version in a knee jerk manner. See for yourself the differences between my version and Saposcats. JFD is trying to make it look like I've been disruptive to the extent of undoing Saposcat's edits.

JFD has even been trying to cite Freedom skies, you even reverted back some small typos that I had corrected. The difference betwenn the two versions was just of bought and brought, and I was confused so I verified it from the book. I corrected it and notified the other editors that changes had been made.

Freedom skies| talk  06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming non-participants are allowed on this page, let me present my view of this more or less first interaction of mine with Freedom skies. My modification to his edits consisted of converting a section into a subsection, and reducing the number of lines spent on a particular point of view (so I shortened the subsection, not blanked it). Seeing his subsequent reaction, I decided not to get into arguments, and merely asked him to at least be careful about not reintroducing some minor typos I corrected. --Knverma 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the subsection, not blanked it

This account blanked Yoga and distorted citations here, This account distorted The earliest conceptual and practical beginings of Zen lie in India, its formation and evolution as an innovative religious movement lies in China. to The formation and evolution of Zen as an innovative religious movement lies in China. and This account blanked An Shih Kao and a reference tag.

It was very nice of This account to show up here for a reminder of to at least be careful about not reintroducing some minor typos I corrected, especially given that the reintroducuction of minor typos comprised of bought and brought.

I said further distortion of citations and blanking of sourced sections will be reported and I will report any further distortions of citations and blanking of sourced sections by this account.

Freedom skies| talk  17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom skies' sockpuppetry

Checkuser has identified Phillip Rosenthal and Moerou toukon as likely sockpuppets of Freedom skies, which he has used to engage in POV-pushing and edit-warring[3][4] while this Arbitration was going on. Moerou toukon was a sockpuppet Freedom skies created shortly after the opening of this Arbitration.[5]

Though I am relieved that any remedy that applies to Freedom skies also applies to his socks, shouldn't this be reflected explicitly in the findings ("Freedom skies has engaged in sockpuppetry") and principles ("Accounts and anonymous IPs which engage in the same behavior as another user in the same context shall be subject to the same remedies as that user")?

JFD 08:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE

I have nothing further to add to this; As for user:Johnbod

I would also suggest taking a look here for viewing a conclusive summary. Johnbod seems to think of The Chinese people had applied it to a species of bank notes as early as the tenth century. Still, this operation was expensive and also so insufficient, that the art of printing cannot be said to have been yet discovered lines as unpalatable, while the truth is that Paper was used commonly in Europe and Chinese paper and printing were expensive and insufficient. Look into the contribs; you'll see that I introduced the citations in that article which actually led to the GA reviewer saying The history section is on its way to being well sourced, but still needs more work. ; note that the GA reviewer does not make the same assertions for Johnbod's shoddy citations. I provided a summary here and It was I who introduced Papermaking has traditionally been traced to about AD 105, when Cai Lun, an official attached to the Imperial court of China, created a sheet of paper using mulberry and other bast fibres along with fishnets, old rags, and hemp waste in the papermaking article using Brittanica and yet Johnbod falsely claims that he spent half of yesterday battling to overturn the removal of all reference to Chinese papermaking in the history section. I could have produced multiple reliable sources critical of early papermaking processes in various countries but I refrained as Johnbod clearly did not find any critisism favorable and I did not edit with intent to target an individual in lesser or greater degree.

Johnbod is the one who wrote that The word paper comes from your momma's pussy

Meatwaggon seems to be an account built for the purposes similar to Johnbod's intentions. If it does not look suspicious to anyone then I'll stand corrected.

JFD has been banning the very accounts I used to avoid from being flagged for revert his cabal; If an admin could have done it I would have appreciated the dignity as opposed to a zealous witchhunt of legit use accounts. I won't be using them and even if I would have for the purpose of avoiding detection by disruptive users and editing in one area with one account then I would have been careful to observe the one week/one revert rule in case it would come later to haunt me.

The work that as done using those accounts found praise and articles were pushed to GA (even now about 4 articles are about an inch away from GA). I would urge the arbitrators again see take a look here as I don't have much to add to it and am finding the new image created and propogated by JFD, that of a violent militant, hard to bear.

Freedom skies| talk  01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies,
You used sockpuppets to accuse fellow editors of sockpuppetry![6]
Isn't that—oh, I don't know—unbelievably hypocritical?
JFD 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And that's on top of the POV-pushing and personal attacks!
You made a Request for comment and the only editor to answer that request was you, using your socks to pretend to be two different editors!
Those are abusive and illegitimate uses of multiple accounts.
JFD 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It did not happen like that,
The only one talking to Johnbod was Moerou Toukon; that was until Meatwaggon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) appeared out of nowhere and the disruptive user removed critisisms from the article, pushed a Han Chinese agenda by distorting references, appeared on 7 April 2007 and walked into papermaking on 8 April 2007. He started working with Johnod to have me trapped in 3RR; that's when I used the other account. The nature of the person involved can be gauged by the following diffs:- abusive language to support Han China, distorts citations to favor China, abusive references to scientist favoring ancient Greece over China, removes Other historians believe that several cultures contributed to the development of gunpowder, as James Partington writes in his History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder:, abuses others who disagree with the excessive editorialization done by the Han Chinese cabal, I see you have an affiliation with a Japanese university; perhaps I could stupe to your level and insinuate anti China motivations on your part. Your edits are being reverted., I find it amusing that, having utterly lost your battle in the Papermaking thread to largely or completely delete all references to Chinese papermaking, you now post here to slander me for preventing your own clearly biased POV from prevailing. How little of you. But actually I think the end result of the Papermaking page in its present form, a form which you fruitlessly fought to prevent, is a better testimony against you than anything I could say here., .............. there are 'tons' more of such material in the short duration that the abusive account spent here from 14 april to 20 April between which his work was Your edits are being reverted; I mailed an admin but she was on a break and when the account worked with Johnbod to have me trapped in 3RR I guess I lost it, and as usual, it'll be used to help strengthen my new image of a tireless zealot. Freedom skies| talk  04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition

Is this really nessasary? A biased editor going on a personal witchhunt spree and attaching tags himself? The very reason why I created those accounts (which never interfered with the topics found contentious by JFD) was to avoid attacks such as this. At least JFD is enjoying himself undoing the admin's work to make a point.

Freedom skies| talk  01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In this diff, Freedom skies places his sockpuppet Moerou toukon in the category "Japanese Wikipedians".
For his other known sock, Freedom skies picked the name "Phillip Rosenthal".
Does Freedom skies expect us to believe that he's a Japanese by the name of Phillip Rosenthal?
Because I don't think that Freedom skies is Japanese or that his name is Phillip Rosenthal.
In this diff (made during this Arbitration on 20 April) Freedom skies tells Knverma "editors who alter their very ethnicity to gain leverage in long standing disputes surely ought to be punished".
I suggest that the Arbitration Committee hold Freedom skies to the same standard with which he threatens fellow editors.
JFD 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
E puoi veramente parlare italiano?[7]
Perche io posso.
JFD 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not use the account to gain leverage in long standing disputes at all; I edited on other fields as you flag my edits for revert. I have yet to edit on Zen, Bodhidharma, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts, Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection etc. to gain leverage in long standing disputes using the alternate accounts; I could have done that after hitting 500 edits and having a month of membership but unlike Kennethtennyson and Knverna, I did not.

Editing via second account for areas outside those considered contentious does not amount to gain leverage in long standing disputes; unlike what the Knverma account has done, changed his name to an Indian and came back to the same articles he used to edit before and began acting disruptive.

Freedom skies| talk  04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So is your name really Phillip Rosenthal?
Are you actually Japanese?[8]
Are you in reality a Japanese named Phillip Rosenthal?
JFD 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that you're begining to enjoy misrepresenting it, JFD; Where does it say that Phillip Rosenthal is a Japanese? Don't act snide on this arbcom case, JFD, it's insulting. Freedom skies| talk  05:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Transitivity.
According to checkuser—and now by your own admission—Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal and Moerou toukon are all the same person.
Since Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal and Moerou toukon are the same person, and Moerou toukon is Japanese, then you, Freedom skies, must be a Japanese named Phillip Rosenthal.
Unless of course Phillip Rosenthal's name and Moerou toukon's ethnicity are merely the latest in your long history of misrepresentation.
JFD 05:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JFD mocked me by saying E puoi veramente parlare italiano?, which means And you can truly speak Italian? and provided this diff.

I'll produce the contents here:-

Anyone who speaks italian, it would be good if we could basically translate some parts from the pasta article in the Italian Wikipedia, because that article seems to have more info. Just a suggestion. Arnesh 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to do that once I free myself from my current commitments. Phillip Rosenthal 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited that article to GA class. I maintained that article. I would have had the Italian wiki article on Pasta translated into English and would have searched to find citations so it could help push the article to FA. I still plan on doing this as soon as this is over.

I'm glad to see that JFD is having fun and it's begining to show.

Freedom skies| talk  04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulazioni. Puoi usare Babelfish.
Non rispondevi a mia domanda.
JFD 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? Jibes and snide comments are of no use once everything has been submitted to the arbcom, JFD. Your recent posts consist of repeated snide remarks with no purpose other than mocking me. Stop the snide remarks. Freedom skies| talk  05:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Non devo ubbidire un maestro del sockpuppet chi fa anche guerra dell'edit. JFD 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)