Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Terryeo

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raymond Hill (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 24 April 2006 (→‎First assertion: added <br>s to list properly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by {Terryeo}

First assertion: Editors understand the stated word differently

I edit with the intention of introducing the articles in the Dianetics and Scientology areas. These words are widely published, translated into many languages and are understood differently by various groups. For example, there is a net presense, xenu.net which is dedicated to making these subjects and their organizations not only wrong, but apparently hoping to destroy them. That site and other sites mis-present the information which comprises these subjects and present information about these subjects of an expose' newspaper type style. The most gentle way I could put it would be to say, "they misunderstand the concepts" which comprise these subjects. In misunderstanding, they mis-present the subjects. So how should Wikipedia present these subjects? As I read NPOV, Wikipedia should present the subject as the author and originator of the subjects intend them. Original source first, in this kind of situation. Then, after the subject is introduced so a reader can understand what the subject is about, then a reader is ready for and has a context for understanding controversy. Finally, tertiary sources, when available, can support any or all of the points of view. This lack of understanding the information which comprises a subject is, I believe, the problem which editors revolve around, this is the problem which led to this arbitration. Everyone edits in good faith, edits the subjects as they understand them. I provide a balancing force against other editors who get a lot of thier information from xenu.net and other "hostile to scientology" websites.Terryeo 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an illustration of the good faith the editors perform, any or all of the editors will revert and have reverted vandalism from the article, whether it is vandalism that deletes a huge block of data and inserts "Tom Cruise is gay" or whether it is a one word vandalism. Both sides work toward a good article and both sides care for what they are producing.

There have been several instances of incivility and there have been instances of edit wars, or something close to edit wars. Usually at least some discussion takes place. Rather than attempt to use my statement's space to attack those who will probably expose every poor edit and talk page discussion I have done, I am going to spell out and illustrate the basic difficulty as well as I can. Certainly I have had personal attacks against me and certainly I have been somewhat less than perfectly civil on occassion. However, we are all big boys and girls and soon after such interchanges we editors, at least most of us, most of the time, are soon talking with each other again. These subjects are in the area of religion and the "mind," some difficulties should be expected. The core of the difficulty is, I believe, the subjects are understood differently by different people.

I don't try to create huge changes, nor am I a doctrinaire who seeks to eliminate points of view which are not my own. One change I have brought about is in the Fair Game article which originally stated, "Fair game is a status ..." [2] and because of my editing, explainations and verifications, today reads, "Fair Game was a status ..." That article also contains a verification of today's Church policy that applies to Fair Game. I am saying, I do not mean to largely change articles. I do mean to get these articles to present good, verified information. After the subject is introduced as the subject was meant by its author to be presented, then I am mostly finished.07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion: The other guy's point of view

The problem of this request, however, is not the existence of several points of view, but a lack of understanding of the "other guy’s" point of view. The point of view which is controversial to the existence of Scientology is easy to identity, it almost always rouses the emotions and makes you feel strongly that something is very, very wrong. All of the editors who are posting this request against me are of that point of view. They do all present information about these subjects. But they do not present the subject which the article is about, instead they mainly present the controversy which the subject is about. None of them (my opinion) have presented the subjects of the named articles in an easy – for – the – reader – to – understand sort of way. I do not believe they can because they do not understand the subjects. Also, in some cases, they present misinformation about the subject. The problem is about understanding. The problem is that those editors do not understand the subjects, but think they understand the subjects. They do, without doubt, understand there is controversy about the subjects. A person will never understand these subjects by reading Xenu.net and Clambake.org. The problem is a lack of understanding. User:Spirit of Man spells it out pretty well about the Dianetics article. He states: "WP:SCN editors act to rewrite or delete edits supportive of the view, Dianetics and Scientology exist as legitimate subjects."

A number of editors actively prevent Spirit of Man (and myself) from presenting the subject as it was created, as it is practiced and as it is successfully disseminated today. They actively resist and prevent such information from entering the article. They refuse to communicate with me (and sometimes with Spirit of Man) and insist that anything I type is some kind of "clone statement" or they use other derogatory terms. And I am not talking about the whole of the Dianetics article reflecting only one point of view, I am talking about the actual prevention of what Dianetics is (a practice, action and activity), actually preventing it from getting into the article. To get one of the words, "action or activity or practice" into the introduction of the article at all took several months, it took a vast amount of effort by 3 editors who know the subject. Finally, after a great amount of effort the word got into the introduction of the article. What happened? Well, an opposing editor saw that "action / activity" is going to be in there someplace and they insist there be a disambiguation template which disperses a reader’s attention from the introduction. I am saying this, the "other side" is a very effective group of editors. When they are finally forced to have some actual information of what the article is actually about, then dispersion is used to prevent the meaning of the subject reaching to the reader. I am not trying to own any article. I am not trying to create a large part of an article. I am simply working toward having the articles present the subject they purport to be about. It might take a paragraph and it might take 3 paragraphs but it does not take a whole article to present the subject.Terryeo 07:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third assertion: A small representation of the difficulties

These are recent reversions which are made with no disccussion whatsoever, reversions which both ignore a good deal of discusssion on the article's discussion page and ignore the points raised in those discussions.

  • 06:26, 11 April 2006 Vivaldi (Revert to revision dated 08:26, 11 April 2006 by Wikipediatrix, oldid 47951263) [3]
  • 05:26, 11 April 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv to ChrisO. Terryeo's edit was poorly written and his edit summary was highly misleading)[4]
    Which Wikipediatrix did in response to: 11 April 2006 Terryeo (→Thetan in Scientology doctrine - rather than the loosely stated Piece of Blue Sky, I blockquoted the guy. its a matter of good WP:V)[5]
  • 07:44, 11 April 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Terryeo's nonsensical edit)[6]

Your links are not useful. They are to versions of the article rather than to diffs which show the changes made. Fred Bauder 13:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are so right. Here is what I should have posted to begin with:
  • On 11Apr, at 5:21 with this edit summary "05:21, 11 April 2006 Terryeo (→Thetan in Scientology doctrine - rather than the loosely stated Piece of Blue Sky, I blockquoted the guy. its a matter of good WP:V)[7]
  • Wikipediatrix then summarized here edit: "05:26, 11 April 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv to ChrisO. Terryeo's edit was poorly written and his edit summary was highly misleading)" [8]
  • And then my edit summary, "05:53, 11 April 2006 Terryeo (rv Wikipediatrix's reversion. I appropriately cite a Piece of Blue Sky instead of the evaluation statements and poor citation which Wikipediatrix reverts to)" [9]
  • and then Vivaldi's summary, "06:26, 11 April 2006 Vivaldi (Revert to revision dated 08:26, 11 April 2006 by Wikipediatrix, oldid 47951263)" [10]

The sequence is available thetan history

Fourth assertion: Personal Websites

I beg the arbitration committee's indulgence because this statement probably puts my assertion beyond 1000 words. I post because I think I can now state the divide which brought this situation to a Request for Arbitration and will be as brief as possible.

The main difference which separates the two “sides” revolves around what may be cited to fulfill Wikipedia Standards. ChrisO and the various editors who made statements in the Rfc which led to this Rfa cite personal websites freely to support their understanding of the subjects. WP:RS, and specifically, WP:RS#Personal websites as secondary sources contains our guideline. It states: Personal websites . . . may never be used as secondary sources.

An example of a personal website which drives this controversy is Xenu.net, [11], which also uses the internet address, Clambake.org [12]]. Both addresses point to the same page. At the bottom of that page it declares itself to be a personal website, stating:

  • DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.
    (note: opinions are the opererative term in his disclaimer. Thus confidential to Scientology audio lectures become his opinions if they appear on his site, they are not attributed, but his own stated opinion. In this manner his site may contain any information, good, bad or modified).

Yesterday I made several edits and removed that website from two articles which had cited it as a secondary source. Before I did, I put my “why” on my user discussion page. Then in my edit summaries I specified the guideline by which I made the edits. ChrisO replied to my edits on my discussion page, stating:

  • Xenu.net is not a personal website. Many people have contributed to it, including myself (emphisis added). Andreas Heldal-Lund's notice is simply a statement that he is the sole owner of Operation Clambake. It doesn't say that he claims authorship of everything on it. -- ChrisO 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [13]
    Of course I am not referencing anything about "authorship" and WP:RS says nothing about "authorship" in regard to personal websites as secondary sources on Wikipedia.

Modemac, sensing a potential difficulty, warned ChrisO. [14]

After which ChrisO posted nothing more to my discussion page.

I therefore request the following.

  • Would an arbitrator explain to ChrisO, who has administrator status, the inappropriateness of contributing information to a personal website, information which might or might not have real Wikpedic value, information which might even include something like, “L. Ron Hubbard said, ‘the moon is made of green cheese’, Oct. 5, 1980”. And then, that same editor coming here, here to Wikipedia and quoting and citing that information (which that editor had just posted on that personal website) in a Wikipedia article ? A NPOV is obviously unobtainable in such a situation.
  • Would the arbitration committee please underscore and specify that a personal website is not appropriate to a Wikipedia presentation as a secondary source of information in an article? WP:RS does not appear to be stated firmly enough for some editors to understand why not. Please specify that Xenu.net and Clambake.org may not be cited as secondary sources of any information in any Dianetics or Scientology article.
  • ChrisO himself states that he has no personal interest in the Dianetics and Scientology articles. He states that he was invited to edit in them. I request he not be allowed to cite that website after he has understood why he should not cite that website.Terryeo 02:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by ChrisO, Raymond Hill and David Strauss

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Terryeo, which is actually evidence submitted by many contributors (I submitted a few ones only). Raymond Hill 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated and summarised to reduce wordage overload! -- ChrisO 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added my name because a number of the items below are my contributions. I'll try and add a separate, more personal statement if I have time. --Davidstrauss 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivil conduct

Terryeo has repeatedly made personal attacks against a number of users:

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]

Edit warring

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement

An egregious demonstration of Terryeo's tendency to initiate drawn-out edit wars, seemingly just to make a point, is the disambiguation page Engram, and Terryeo's attempts to insert a dictionary definition copied from an external source and rearrange the entries to put Engram (Dianetics) first in order:

Terryeo persisted with these edits even after other editors in edit summaries ([25], [26], [27]) and talk page discussion ([28]) pointed him to pages (m:When should I link externally, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, WP:MOSDAB) which spelled out that the edits he was insisting on were unsupported by policy or even directly in contradiction to it.

POV editing

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement

  • Dianetics:
    • [29] "removed some editor's personal opinion of what the book contains"
    • [30] "I disagree. NPOV dictates the non-sequiter and not germane german rendition of the word be removed and an internet link allow a reader to learn for themselves." (repeatedly deleting a Greek (not German!) etymology on the grounds that it's "dispersive" [sic])
    • [31] "Will you please keep your pseudoscience out of the description of Dianetic theory" (same section)
    • [32] "corrected some misinformation in the article, removed the dispersive other-language addition"
    • [33] "This section was so POV that I removed some of its more far out rants and made it more readable." (repeatedly deleting much of the section, which is based on the Intelligent design article)
    • [34] "removed the placard which takes up article space without contributing to the article" (same section)
    • [35] "removed a piece which explains what Dianetics would have to fulfill to be a "science". This is not spelled out to do in Wikipedia guidelines and I have removed it."

Violations of Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement

Terryeo repeatedly reverts articles against consensus in order to impose his own POV. He has already been blocked for violations of the 3RR but has continued regardless. On another user's talk page, he has stated that he will continue to revert articles but at a lower frequency: "I am re-doing the Dianetics article about once a day and staying under the 3 times a day thing". [36] This is clearly prohibited at WP:3RR#Intent of the policy.

See also diffs in sections below.

Removal of references for POV reasons

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:NPOV

Terryeo has also repeatedly deleted valid citations and references to external websites on the grounds that the material in question - which is not hosted anywhere on Wikipedia - is "unpublished, legally contentious" (in his personal POV) and should not be mentioned or linked to, even in extract form:

Another instance of Terryeo deleting valid references is to be found at Golden Era Productions; a particular statement was supported by a reference that gave not just the URL to an article from a major metropolitan newspaper that verified the statement, but a quote from the article itself spelling out just what evidence confirmed the claim. Terryeo removed the URL from inside the reference, moving it into an external links section he had just created, and in the same edit placed a {{fact}} template inside the reference, claiming "more appropriate placed the references and notes, citation needed about voting registration records" in his edit summary:

Another example:

  • 14:10, 1 March 2006 - removal of citations he requested himself originally [37]: "placed a better, online definition of MEST, removed some non-contribuatory [sic] information"

And yet another:

  • [38], [39] Edit summary for the second link: "The mention of Breggin should point to breggin's site. doh." (The citation Terryeo alters already points to Peter Breggin's site, to a specific page where Breggin discusses quite frankly his antipathy towards Scientology, which is the very fact that was being cited. Terryeo alters it twice so that it no longer points to that specific page, only to the highest-level page of Breggin's site.)

And again:

And more:

  • [40] and numerous other examples, several of which are listed by Raymond Hill, below. Using the argument that all of the previously published material archived on the website xenu.net was invalid because xenu.net is a "personal" website, thus subject to the Wikipedia guideline against using personal web sites and blogs as reliable sources, he proceeded to delete many well founded references and in some cases the associated content in the article. He did this despite a unanimous outcry by multiple other editors that his interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines was entirely incorrect and without foundation. His behavior was so disruptive that he was immediately blocked for 24 hours. This behavior took place on April 20, after this Arbitration Request had been accepted.
Comment added by ChrisO: Terryeo appears to be arguing that anything hosted on a "personal website" should not be cited, even if it is actually sourced from a verifiable third party. In the example given above ([41]) he deleted an extract from a widely-published 1957 book on the grounds that it was on a "personal website". He has not asserted that the extract is in any way misquoted, inappropriate or otherwise not worth using. WP:RS clearly targets the use of the views of website owners as quotable facts, not third-party information quoted or provided on "personal websites".

Inappropriate removal of content from talk pages

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Terryeo has repeatedly deleted content other than his from Talk:Dianetics. On 5 February I added a box to the top of Talk:Dianetics (see diff), taken almost unchanged from Talk:Intelligent design, which cited the applicable editing policies. My intention in doing this was to highlight the rules of engagement for the article and encourage the editors to think about whether their contributions met Wikipedia's requirements.

Instead, Terryeo repeatedly deleted the box on a variety of spurious grounds (several times giving no explanation in his editing comments). His stated grounds attracted incredulity from other editors (User:KillerChihuahua: "I am very surprised to hear that a notice to apply NPOV, NOR, and be sure to CITE is somehow POV per Terryeo. Dumbfounded might be more accurate, leaning in fact towards completely disbelieving"). This also provides another illustration of Terryeo's edit warring tactics and violations of the 3RR:

  • 2006/02/06 06:42:25 - "Removed "guidence template" because it posts which policies are to be followed. And that is not accurate and not correct and not complete. We should treat Dianetics like a theory."
  • 2006/02/06 16:35:06 - "Removed ChrisO's template. It is neither accurate nor on-policy. It doesn't reflect a concensus of editor opinions. See the discussion."
  • 2006/02/06 16:50:12 - "some replys. template removed."
  • 2006/02/06 17:54:33 - "Removed ChrisO's completely POV template, misunderstandingly restored by Wikipediatrix"
  • 2006/02/06 23:52:56 - "removed introduction template. We all edit under common wiki policies. they all apply ChrisO's POV applies to ChrisO."
  • 2006/02/07 00:20:45 - "reply to User:KillerChihuahua and reply to User:ChrisO removed template"
  • 2006/02/13 01:32:58 - "removed the redundant top of page template"

Disregard of consensus

Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Terryeo has repeatedly and wilfully disregarded the consensus of other editors, often with peculiar justifications (e.g. that the use of a disambiguation template constitutes original research or that it is "dispersive" (sic)):

  • Dianetics - repeated replacement of the existing introduction with a poorly worded and vague alternative, against consensus from all but one of the other active editors on the article: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and many more

This behaviour has continued since the initiation of the RfC and RfAr proceedings, illustrating Terryeo's unwillingness to moderate his conduct despite the strong censure that he has received from his peers. Recent diffs on Dianetics: [55] ("removed the top of page disambiguation. It is dispersive, there are no "other uses"), [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]

Inappropriate deletion of content

The Thetan article provides an overview of this Scientology concept, with one-paragraph summaries of subsidiary articles covering the Body thetan and Operating Thetan concepts. Terryeo considers these summaries "redundant" and "dispersive" (sic) and has repeatedly deleted them against consensus, violating the 3RR in the process.

  • 00:21, 5 March 2006 - "removed the redundant piece on "body thetan" which is to be found in its own article"
  • 08:31, 5 March 2006 - "Removed the redendant "body thetan" piece"
  • 10:12, 5 March 2006 - "removed a good deal of information extant already in 2 other articles. ChrisO certainly dispersed and created confusions with his edits here."
  • 20:07, 6 March 2006 - "reverted article, removing dispersive, redundant informations extant in other articles."

See "#Disregard of consensus" above for further examples (repeated removals of disambiguation links against consensus)

Evidence presented by Raymond Hill

First assertion

Inapropriate deletion of content, deceptively brandishing the WP:RS wikipedia policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=49377859
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=49378060
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=49378556
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=49378861
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_opera_in_Scientology_doctrine&diff=prev&oldid=49379122
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=49379505
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=49379878
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=49380211
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=49380943
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=49381111

I believe he was deceptive in claiming the particular wikipedia policy, and purposefully intellectually dishonest, because:
1) he removed content from the article, not just the links where the referenced material could be found online.
2) he didn't bother removing many other sites which would fit his (flawed) interpretation of the wikipedia policy he brandished.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence&oldid=49841523"