Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe (and I could be wrong) that comments are now more appropriately placed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop as the case itself has been opened. WLU 22
14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments may be placed in either location. Typically, comments here relate to the general subject of the case itself, while comments on workshop talk are more directed to proposed principles, findings, and remedies submitted in the workshop; but it's a fine line. In general, once the case has been opened, comments on workshop talk will probably be a little bit more prominent. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Statement by NeoFreak

It is with alot of caution that I make a statement here about this arbitration request. I am involved in a peripheral sense and I am cited in the statements by WLU and will no doubt also be cited by Mystar when he is ready to make his own statement. To be honest and upfront I am often in conflict with Mystar and our "relationship" has been very rocky. I have no such problems with WLU and we are on good terms. I refuse to take sides though as both people in this case are good editors when their (and my own) inclination to fight or bicker is overcome.

From what I can gather from more intimate and off-wiki interaction Mystar is a very good person and has no malicous or vandalistic intent here. He is an intelligent and attentive man. The issue is that he is a very passonite person and he is very quick to "fight" when he perceives a threat to his interests. The majority off the conflict between Mystar and other editors, such as WLU, starts on the Terry Goodkind article and the article for his most well known work, The Sword of Truth. Mystar is a close personal friend of Terry Goodkind (and both of them are Ayn Rand adherents, a place where you will see additoinal cites for this arbitration), he is the head of Terry Goodkind's fanclub, the administrator of his online dealings, to include Terrry Goodkind's Myspace account, and his "officially sanctioned" fansite [1]. He has made it clear many times here on wikipedia that he is Terry Goodkin's "online representative" and speaks for the author here. While he has no legal grounds for represetation of the author as he is not his agent we had some article ownership disputes for sometime.

By Mystar's own admission he felt personally attacked and also felt that his friend and one of his favorite authors was being systematically smeared on the internet and took some overly personal and aggressive actions against those that he felt responsible. While I have in fact seen some off-wiki disscussion about "trashing Goodkind's page" on wikpedia and some general "bash Goodkind" fests on message boards I was never witness to the deep conspiracy in wikipedia to libel and defame Terry Goodkind that Mystar thought to have existed. Mystar would often accuse other editors of bad faith, being sock puppets and working to "destroy Goodkind" because "they didn't like his political opinions" or "his success".

I suppose that I'm trying to argue that Mystar is not a destructive force in wikipedia and although he can be disruptive he is a good person that has taken things beyond the accptable boundaries of wikipedia, but only when he thought he was "under attack". I think with a change in tone and a readjustment of what it means to be an editor (a correction of paradigm) that nobody involved here would be untenable. NeoFreak 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Omnilord

Remaining objective, I will only revisit my observations.

WLU has repeatedly stated they do not have a sound familiarity with the Terry Goodkind articles, and yet continues to edit them and add changes that reflect incorrect information and has on several occasions attempted to gain favor for citations after the citations have been turned down by consensus for poor quality, bias and inaccuracy of information. Not to mention a consistent level of page ownership as they he/she is trying to be the sole authority on the subject of the article.

Don't get me wrong, WLU has demonstrated an entirely sophistacted understanding of editing on Wikipedia, but his/her choice of articles to entertain editing on have been poor selections for demonstrated and/or self-admitted ignorance of the facts. That has been and still is the primary concern; WLU edit where they do not know/understand the subject of the article very well and enter erroneous information.

As for Mystar, he is passionate, and he goes in for the long haul when he knows the facts, but at least he admits when he makes mistakes, and works -by action- to make amends. Passion is the driving force behind some of the most profound and excellent works ever done. Of all the people who have made edits any of the articles related to Terry Goodkind, Mystar is perhaps the only person who knows all the facts and can point out were information has gone astray into misinformation. That does not make him a perfect editor, many people have followed behind cleaning up his typos and grammar in the past, and many more will in the future, but the core content of his contributes, once clean up for grammar/spelling/sources, can be the most accurate, up to date, and appropriate information brought forward for an encyclopedic standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnilord (talk • contribs)

[edit] Comments

Are you saying that WLU purposely added incorrect information? NeoFreak 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily on purpose, but they keeps doing it after being told repeatedly by numerous individuals that they are adding misinformation, and still has it out to add citations that were rejected by consensus for being not up to encyclopedic standards. That is bordering on misconduct. Mystar has been the primary reverter of this misinformation. Omnilord 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, diffs please? I doubt I'm adding misinformation, but I could be wrong. Without giving me specifics, I can't say why I did what I did. WLU
Follow-up point. Regarding this section I placed on the talk page to discuss about adding into the main page (incidentally, this also shows what I see as Mystar's problematic editing of comments - not pronouns, but removal of references, and changing the heading to say something very different from my original posting). The references are not the NYT or The Economist, but for most of them I'm just referencing the presence of elements within the books - graphic sexuality, violence, sexual sadism and some awkward prose. There's also praise for TG's work in there, and a comment by TG about why he included the torture stuff (given the extremity of the content, i.e. 80 pages about the main character being tortured, I think it's actually a pretty good reply, hence my inclusion). I'm not using them to say TG is a monster, or to say his books are terrible, I'm using it to justify saying there is violence and sadism in them. So this is one section, in which I did use less than ideal references, to back up something which is known to be in the books anyway. Were people willing to concede there was graphic violence and sexualized torture in the books, I wouldn't need the references. And, once it became clear that the section wasn't going into the page, once Omnilord put in the section about audience, I left it. WLU 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WLU's reply to Omnilord

First, to avoid awkward pronouns, I am a male. I'm changing them in Omnilord's statement 'cause right now I find it hard to understand, if I make a mistake please correct it to the appropriate pronoun. I realize that I'm editing his comments, but I'm doing so to improve their clarity for my own reference. When he says 'he/she/they' in regards to me, I get confused.

My first reply to Omnilord is to state that I do not think he realizes Mystar's actions away from the Terry Goodkind and Sword of Truth pages. I have been wikistalked to many, many other pages (I've got 11 recorded in the evidence section). That is one of the things that appears to be unique to the me-Mystar relationship that no other contributor to the Terry Goodkind page has had to deal with beyond once. Omnilord had defended Mystar's actions in the past, and also to his credit, he has always acknowledged my points and given his honest opinion on my statements. He has even gone so far as to integrate sections into pages that I have pushed for (The Sword of Truth#Audience). Because Omnilord listens to my suggestions, replies to them, states why he disagrees, and has never followed and systematically harassed me like Mystar (in my opinion) has, I have never been incivil to Omnilord (that I remember, he could possibly correct me), and never had a problem with him. I respect his contributions and if he makes a suggestion, I generally take it. If it's on content. If it's a suggestion towards 'handling' Mystar, I've usually ignored them.

My choice of articles to edit is extremely broad, I am not solely limiting my contributions to the TG/SoT pages. Very, very far from it.

My opinion is Mystar's passion on wikipedia does it more harm than good - this is not a message board, genuine vandalism and unsourced comments are reverted by conscientious editors such as myself, Mystar, Omnilord, NeoFreak, etc. Passion is not useful in this medium, as it leads to incivility, bias, POV, etc. Passion has led to him commenting on editors rather than content (my greatest objection to his conduct on the pages). If Mystar dispassionately suggested that my contributions were out of line instead of calling me a vandal, a girl, and threatening to track me down, arbitration would probably not be happening.

As for adding information to articles, I don't believe I've added information to articles on the books proper. I'd really have to see diffs of the articles to comment on specifics, because I really don't think I would add information on a subject I know next to nothing about. I've tried to re-word existing information in an effort to make it more accessible to a layreader, I've added tags, I've had opinions I've put on talk pages, but actually adding incorrect info... As for adding information to the Terry Goodkind biopage proper, it should only be added if it can be referenced. Which means if I can't find it, it shouldn't be there. If Mystar's knows that yesterday Terry Goodkind discovered a cure for cancer or ate a live puppy, but there is no secondary source for it, it should not be on the page. The 'exception' is paper sources but that's really a matter of convenience as the info is still verifiable with some effort.

"...level of page ownership as (if? - WLU) he is trying to be the sole authority on the subject of the article" If there's a reference for information on an article, I let it be. If I'm reverting unreferenced changes to an article (particularly a biopage), or if I revert to preserve changes I have made and discussed on the talk page, when my talk comments have not been addressed, is that ownership?

For most of the categories of evidence, Mystar and I have paralleled each other's offences. I consider it a matter of degree and timing - he did it first isn't much of a defence, but 'he's still doing it' is a reason to bring this to arbitration. WLU 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly WLU you are the one making it a battle ground. You have no authority or right to change in any way what another users posts in here. Unless that user places specific information that is confidential or otherwise abusive, an emergency edit is acceptable. The problem is however (As this is a specific and fine example) your ownership of any page. You change anything you wish, with out regard to the intent or meaning of the person placing said information. Once again, you do not own this page and Omni's comments are Omni's to make. Further, as Omni was not addressing you, but rather the Arbcom committee as a whole. Your changing them in any manor is unacceptable and as I’ve been informed goes against policy, if not honorable intent. Please refrain from altering others comments and focus on your own opinions. Mystar 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To the arbitrators - this is another example of passion over reason. I consider my edits to Omnilord's statement to be minor, not altering the content at all, just clarifying the gender pronouns. To quote the comment made here, ".with the possible exception of obvious typos..." Gender pronouns are not typos, but I think they fall into the same category. Is this ownership? I don't think so. Were I owning this page, I would have reverted the reverts. Instead I'm leaving them to stand 'cause by now I realize that Mystar will probably change them back without responding to my comments, as he has on other pages. Reason says (to me) that the changes were a small matter bringing the pronouns used in line with my stated gender - clarifying so the overly complicated and clumsy use of he/she/they could be avoided for easier reading. Typos make reading harder, awkward pronouns do as well. Again, no change whatsoever to content. I feel like I am running on a treadmill here - I state why I changed things, and instead of a discussion I get 'honorable intent'. I don't know how to reply to honorable intent. So far as I know, wikipedia doesn't have guidelines on honorable intent. I can't say my intentions are or are not honourable because it's a unique perception thing - one man's honour is another man's horror. So I do what I've been forced to do in the past - register my opposition, state why, and Mystar gets to have things his way (and the article/talk page/arbitration page/wherever this occurs, suffers) despite never addressing the stubstance of my comments. This is the second time this has happened in a week - here is the reversion, here is my talk page reply to the reversion, and despite Mystar making several contributions between then and now, I've had no reply. I'm not removing the link again (yet) because I want to know if I'm missing something. Since I've had no reply from Mystar, the reversion looks like malice, stubborness and page ownership to me. I've made comments along this vein this before to no good reply, and it's really, really frustrating, which is why I ended up calling him an idiot (instead of saying 'a biased editor who fails to reply to my substantive points') and bringing this to arbitration. And now I'm stuck with comment page delaying tactics which I am stuck replying, despite having no counter evidence or real discussion to advance the case! To quote Charlie Brown, AARGH! WLU 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So..then by your accounts WLU you are Wikistalking me then...? wow !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystar (talk • contribs)

I regularly check many user's contributions across wikipedia for a variety of reasons - I find the person interesting, I find their choice of topics interesting, I wonder if they are a vandal or POV pushing, etc. However, though I am intimately familiar with your editing history (for the protection of content that I have contributed to, and also so I know the original context of statements like "Unless that user places specific information that is confidential or otherwise abusive, an emergency edit is acceptable.", so I can see what the original comments actually were) I don't edit the pages after you do. Exceptions include those already on my watchlist, which isn't wikistalking, and the plaquenil page. Because I know that wikistalking is a pain in the ass. Which is why I didn't anything to the plaquenil page, despite it looking like this for three weeks. When you weren't doing anything, I cleaned it up and added content. And when I saw there was already an article for Hydroxychloroquine I rolled the conent into that page and put in a redirect. And I did it once (arguably twice). Not eleven times. And I've admitted to it, and realize that it's poor practice to follow someone else's contributions that closely. And I've read the policy on harassment. And I've spent lots of time documenting the evidence for this case, which you have yet to do. You do realize that if the arb committee has only my evidence to go on, they could make a decision based solely on that, and these comments and these talk pages will be essentially? WLU 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Also note, to Mystar and the arbitration committee, that once again the point has been missed. Does Mystar understand the difference between correcting pronouns and changing substantive content? Does he see the difference between observing another user's contributions and quoting a comment to demonstrate a point versus following someone, repeatedly, to 11 different pages and making changes which lower the quality of the pages? I didn't go to Newyorkbrad's talk page and post my own comment about how Mystar is wrong, I did use the comment NYB made in order to place my actions within context. What's the quote about splinters and beams in people's eyes? I know I've made mistakes. I actually try to correct them, and understand the spirit of the policies I'm trying to adhere to. Well, I think I do anyway. That being said, I have some changes to make to my user page... WLU 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] battle ground then.. Clarification please

So am I then to understand that this workshop is to be a battle ground? I guess I'm very dismayed. Mind you I do not know exactly what is or isn't to be placed, yet I see WLU simply changing anything WLU wishes to change. Omni's post was quite understandable and places a "he/she" where applicable. Clear, easy and understandable to understand. I think that if we are in fact to have reasonable discussion and to the facts that WLU must understand that WLU is not the owner of another persons posts and as such has no authority to change said persons post in this format. This is a place for people to post statements. And people are to be free to post their statement with out WLU popping in and altering them to suite his/her view of what they should be. As WLU then changes the meaning, inference and wording of said post. This is a place to post a statement, Now we have WLU altering statements he/she deems he/she doesn't like the wording... what's next, will WLU now change any posts I or anyone make that will clearly show the validity of my points? If so, then this whole exercise is already off in the wrong direction. Further I see WLU now arguing material I've not even addressed as if yet? I guess we can see that this is again part and parcel to the problem. The only reason WLU needs to change anything is that WLU wants to.

I would like some clarification from someone please Mystar 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is part of the problem I've got with Mystar, the perception that this is a battleground and not a place to discuss calmly or cite evidence. This page is not a battle ground, it is a place to post information by any involved parties, then discuss it.
Regarding the changes I made to Omnilord's statement, (imagine a frustrated scream here) all I changed was the pronouns. There was not a single substantive comment that I altered. I have stated repeatedly to Mystar and Omnilord at least once that I am male, it's on my user page, and I find the mixed pronouns irritating and confusing. If I'm reading quickly and someone throw's in a 'she', I don't think of it as referring to me. I never edited the comments to say Omnilord said he thought I was wonderful, or that he thought Mystar's edits were terrible, just the pronouns. If I was 'changing anything WLU wishes to change', I'd be editing the comments to praise me, or vilify Mystar. Changing pronouns, and saying that I was doing so for clarity, and asking for corrections of any mistakes is hardly the basis for a maniacal plan. And when it's a discussion of me, about my gender, I think I'm a little entitled to state a preference and clarify wording. We aren't discussing an abstract reality, we're talking about someone who has self-identified consistently as male.
If Mystar believes that my actions regarding my gender on this talk page which is about me are substantively identical to his actions editing my evidence on Mainspace talk pages (and I believe he does not see a difference), then I see that as part of the problem between us.
And again, I changed no content, none. Only pronouns and verb agreements. Everything Omnilord said about me is still there, it just said he/his rather than him/her/it/them/she/he/they/their/his/etc. There is nowhere to place a "he/she", because it has unequivocally been stated that I am male.
And in regards to this sentence: "what's next, will WLU now change any posts I or anyone make that will clearly show the validity of my points?" First, you have not made any postings that clearly show the validity of your points, but I do have another example of you commenting on me rather than discussing evidence. Second, I don't believe I have ever edited your comments on a talk page. I have broken them up in the past in order to reply point-by-point, but I have never put a different word in mid-sentence that changes the meaning of what you say.
A final comment - this is less than helpful. Quoting the arbitration page: "Evidence is more useful than comments." Please focus your efforts on diffs and evidence rather than the general comments on the talk page so the case can move forward. WLU 12:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

I'll note here, so that anybody with more background on this dispute than I have can comment if there is a problem, that User:WLU requested on my talkpage for me to correct an edit made by an IP to the Systemic lupus erythematosus article diff. I checked this edit and it was indeed incorrect, so I reverted it and created a new page on Multiple sulfatase deficiency to cover the topic the IP was confusing with Lupus. Since WLU seems quite expert on this subject, I feel it would be a pity if they could not correct errors in the Lupus article and I have offered to screen and then perform any such edits in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Very far from an expert on the subject - I ceased to edit the page as part of the arb hearing, but I had hit my limit of knowledge anyway. But I do still monitor the page.
  2. I have been asking numerous editors to revert for me, the most prominent being User:Jfdwolff, but I think I have also asked User:FisherQueen and User:Isotope23. I only request a revert on blatant vandalism or other uncontroversial edits.
  3. I may have undertaken similar actions for other pages I am barred from editing. I scrupulously attempt to adhere to the letter of the arb hearing (but must confess that I've attempted to bend the spirit at least once - this is reflected in my block log).
  4. I appreciate Tim's willingness to undertake these reverts for me on SLE, if this is acceptable to ArbCom then I would prefer to continue monitoring and presenting potential reverts for Tim's review. I trust Tim's judgement and fairness on this matter, if he declines to revert, I am perfectly willing to consider the matter settled. I hope this is OK with the arbitrators. WLU (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)