User:Askahrc/sandbox

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors

Initiated by The Cap'n (talk) at 23:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Vzaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lou Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_is_a_BLP_mess
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Threaded_discussion_.28for_those_who_wish_to_waste_their_time_in_an_RfC_that_will_lead_to_no_actionable_consensus.29
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus_by_exhaustion_at_Rupert_Sheldrake
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alfonzo_Green
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Did_Another_Editor_Get_Blocked.2FBanned_On_This_Cursed_Page.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=577569220

Statement by {Askahrc}

I apologize for the lengthy statement, I was unable to explain this complex problem in 500 words.

This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats and bullying of certain editors working on the Rupert Sheldrake page. There have been a disproportionate number of threatened and actual blocks/bans for this WP:BLP, with a particularly disproportionate number of these threats and all the bans focused on those who oppose the dominant opinion. This opinion has been to reject nearly any edit that references Sheldrake's credentials or work in a legitimate fashion, reverting most efforts and only relenting once it is impossible to resist progress without appearing abusively biased. Numerous reverts are carried out in sequence by a few editors, while a single revert attempt by an editor disagreeing with them was undone in minutes and that editor warned that any further action would be considered WP:EDITWARRING. Editors who are otherwise known to be balanced or even skeptics are called pseudoscientists, Sheldrake-fans or other, more pejorative terms if they argue that the Sheldrake page is not NPOV.

This has been justified by claiming that WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE requires extraordinary evidence from any editors who are trying to cite what the proponent of the fringe theory argues (NOT presenting the fringe theory as fact), but ordinary evidence from those who denounce it. When editors have argued with this unequal burden of proof their attempts at mediation receive a flurry of WP:WIKILAWYER statements denouncing their request for aid and their intelligence, then the WP:RFC or other appeal is shut down. When editors refuse to back down from the peer pressure, threats begin appearing on the Sheldrake talk page or on the user's talk pages, warning them that if they continue editing pseudoscience articles (ie. Rupert Sheldrake) they may face blocking or banning. The threats vary in justification and tone, but share a common purpose of silencing debate on the page; the more in-depth threats include Iantresman, Alfonzo Green, Lou Sander and others.

Until recently only the so-called pro-Sheldrake editors received these threats, and the editors banned through the course of this articles work have all been those who insisted that either WP:FRINGE does not mandate an unequal burden of proof or otherwise disagreed with the negative bias on the page. Regardless of the guilt of the blocked editors, it is important to note that they were singled out specifically because they contributed on the Sheldrake page, but none were clearly shown to be disrupting the article, edit-warring or maliciously trolling the page. This is important because it is indicative of an effort to find an excuse to block dissenting opinion, regardless of whether it's disruptive. An example of this is the practice of accusing people of sockpuppetry, which editors have noted tends to elicit a swift reaction from admins. Thus Tumbleman, Oh boy chicken again, Philosophyfellow, Shaynekori and others had bans pursued with or without Checkuser reports confirming sockpuppetry based on the fact that they were editing the Sheldrake page for similar reasons. Oh boy chicken again was even confirmed as an unlikely sockpuppet but the ban was still pursued. Whether or not User:Tumbleman had a case against him, his full name, business information and personal info were distributed against his will as retribution for persisting on the Sheldrake page, leading to antagonism outside WP. That is unacceptable behavior and not just poor WP form, but cyber bullying. There is evidence for these points should the arbitration proceed.

We need to find a way to curtail the disproportionate number of AN/I warnings, blocking threats, social pressuring and unfair burden of proof enforced by a group of editors who are crushing dissent on this page. I'm familiar with and respect the editors in question, this is not an attack on them but an attempt to shift a culture that is deteriorating quality editing and giving good editors bad habits. The atmosphere has become so hostile and combative that many editors on both sides have become disillusioned with trying to improve the Sheldrake page. That said, the article itself is slowly coming together and is not the subject of this arbitration request, but rather the conduct surrounding the page that is indicative of a culture of intolerance and bullying that is gathering public attention and is detrimental to Wikipedia.

I am hoping for an intervention that will directly recognize the equality of reliable sources when reporting on (rather than arguing for) a fringe subject, a higher standard of evidence before blocks or bans are levied against editors here and, if at all possible, an investigation into the prevalence of bullying minority-opinion editors with frivolous threats.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

(

)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

76

There is a recurring issue with 76.107.171.90 (talk) using vulgarity, personal attacks and inappropriate behavior against the editors they disagree with.

• Incidents of personal attacks against me: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Examples of issues with others: 1 (referring to someone as a "diehard retard"), 2 (referring to Liz ^{Read! Talk!}'s questioning 76's personal attacks as a bullying troll), 3 (writing up an AE arguing for an editor to be indefinitely blocked because they were "pro-fringe")

My first notable encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they weighed in on a conversation I was having with another editor. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by my stated interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts out with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!"

This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason with 76 until I finally gave up and decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats despite this.

Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):

• When I pointed out the inaccuracy of their claims (ie. I haven't made any pro-fringe comments), 76 replied "Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP?"
• When I pointed out that I had no desire for WP:BATTLEGROUND, 76 said "WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.", then reminded me "I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges."
• When I pointed out that threats of blocking were not appropriate, 76 replied there was no threat, but rather "I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization?"
• 76 first claimed they were simply trying to help me "rejoin the mainstream", saying "And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again." When I pointed out their behavior was far from helpful, they reiterated their threats, "I’m not “offering helpful advice”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher." and "But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked."
• Here is an accumulation of the variety of ways that 76 brought up my blocking in our exchange (not including those mentioned above), claiming they were doing so without any intent to threaten: "The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.", "Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?", "Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone.", "I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI.", " If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing."

To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems very unreasonable and inappropriate in any case. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant. That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not acceptable on WP. The Cap'n (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)