Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Tazmaniacs[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Intangible sanitize political articles by removing the term far right wherever editorial consensus has judged it necessary. (see 3rd Afd in a row). One example: having discovered the Far right leagues art., based on the fr:ligues d'extrême-droite, Intangible has only one desire: asking for the deletion of the Category:French far right leagues, or at least separating it into "fascist" and "nationalist leagues". He thus proposes a new CfD (proposing ten CfD at the same time, all about the same subject), here. This new CfD is an obvious trolling attempt. I guess Intangible is using his ideological stance as only navigational tool.

  • Ad hominem?. Furthermore, his comment about Cberlet's use of a Journal of Historical Review article in the Nouvelle Droite article ([2]) is close to an ad hominen attack where he tries to reverse the charge and let Cberlet pass as a revisionist. This is quite indecent especially in the views that Cberlet's citation was there to source a quote from Alain de Benoist, that the article is about a far right movement not totally unrelated with the revisionist galaxy, and all the more if you see a bit the debate on the "Nouvelle droite" talk page: Intangible is trying since a month to transform the Nouvelle Droite in the New Right, forcing Cberlet to endlessly repeat the same evidences. If this isn't trolling, than what is? Tazmaniacs 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more trollish edits by Intangible:

[3],[4] ,[5],[6]

[7] [8] [9], [10],[11], [12], [13], [14]...

[18])

,[22], [23]

  • I took the freedom to copy-paste this list which we tried to set up a few weeks ago at [24]. Tazmaniacs 12:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [31] Intangible's work at the Communist state article. We may also have to block Intangible from editing pages involving far-left politics, since he won't stop commandeering those articles either. -- WGee 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 18, Guido Demoor Guido Demoor recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 July 2006 Vlaams Belang While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, new revert by Intangible ("use the talk page first when you want to remove references here"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.", upon which Intangible reverts back again : "I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first". I step in, and revert back : "I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page". New revert from Intangible : "surely it can be included though". Revert back from myself :"I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : [32]. My answer on his talk page : [33], upon which Intangible reverts back Vlaams Belang : "instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a personal attack by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page. --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits [34] and [35] : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up. --LucVerhelst 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While on the Vlaams Belang page he insists on adding information on the predecessor of the party (see above), on Matthias Storme he "hides" this information behind a legalistic description [36]. He simply reverts my addition : "not at all necessary here, there are wikilinks you know". I gave up. --LucVerhelst 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intangible has been temporarily blocked for 3RV on Anarchism by User:William M. Connolley, see his talk page. Tazmaniacs 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [37] Deletion of valuable and accurate information, and removal from a valid category. Intangible summarized his edits as "see article"[38], while the article for National Bolshevism was virtually unchanged [39] (although Intangible did obscure some of the references to Facism as an ideological source for the theory by moving them around, they are still prominently in the text - as well they should be); his changes did not reflect those changes as much as they did his very own comment on the talk page for the article. Even if the fascist connection would be as shaky as he claims it is, it is obvious that National Bolshevism would need inclusion in Category:Fascism at the very least for having oriented (I use the term in the vaguest sense) itself after political theories which were brought to the forefront by Fascism - as a parallel, note that the very non-fascist Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers is also included in the Fascism category. And, of course, it is obvious that several movements covered by the term were also overtly fascist-inspired (arguably, they all are, but let's not get into that). Dahn 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources[edit]

Evidence presented by User:Cberlet[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Arbitrary deletion or reversion without proper discussion or consensus: Diffs: [42]; [43]; [44]; no discussion, against consensus; wholesale;

Second assertion[edit]

Unreasonable deletions to POV push: [45], [46], [47], [48].

Third assertion[edit]

Continuous POV deletions re: "far right:" Diff: [49]; [50];

Fourth assertion[edit]

Sanitization of articles about right-wing groups or individuals: Diffs: [51]; [52]; [53]; [54];

Fifth assertion[edit]

POV campaign of Renaming/Deleting Categories: [55]; [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. [61]

Inappropriate removal of categories from pages: [62]

Sixth assertion[edit]

Gaming discussions & walking editors in circles: Diffs: [63]; [64]; here; user talk go round

The following Diff's illustrate the rapid-fire aspect of trumping other editors and brushing aside attempts at consensus in a relentless and POV way: [65],[66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76].

Evidence presented by User:LucVerhelst[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Arbitrary deletion or reversion without proper discussion or consensus: Diffs: [77]

Second assertion[edit]

Unreasonable deletions to POV push : [78] (This edit was reversed by the next edit he made [79] Fred Bauder 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC), and re-reversed again with his next edit[80], net result being the unreasonable deletion in question[81]--LucVerhelst 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)),[reply]

[82], [83], [84], [85],

[86],--LucVerhelst 08:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portraying V.B. as a merely nationalist party, removing facts on the far right history : [87]

[88] (Vlaams Belang MEP's are part of the Non-Inscrits Euro-parliamentary group.) --LucVerhelst 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding linkspam to POV push : [89], [90],

[91] --LucVerhelst 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth assertion[edit]

Sanitization of articles about right-wing groups or individuals: Diffs: [92], [93],

[94] --LucVerhelst 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth assertion[edit]

Inappropriate removal of categories:
Removal of parent cat "Politics" from cat "Political geography", making the latter inaccessible from the former : [95]

Sixth assertion[edit]

Gaming discussions & walking editors in circles: Diffs: [96], [97]

Case : the neoconservative inspiration of the Vlaams Belang party program : This was added by me, based on an article from a quality paper. Afterwards, the conclusion was not entirely correct. Intangible at first reverted : [98] with an irrelevant summary. I took it to the talk page, and User:Intangible brushed away my remarks with a derogatory remark.[99] When the discussion ended, I put the sentence back in. Intangible reverted it back again, without explanation as part of a mass deletion.[100] I re-added it again, seeing no reason why it should be removed, still thinking it was verifiable. Intangible reverted it again, with an edit summary that was far from helpful.[101] So I went back to the talk page.[102] Up until now, Intangible didn't further take part in the discussion.

It would have helped if Intangible would have constructively cooperated, making some necessary changes and additions, in stead of simply reverting. --LucVerhelst 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) - I proposed a middle ground, upon which Intangible simply stated that he didn't agree, providing just his POV as an argument. He didn't react to my request for suggestions to improve, so I put the middle ground proposal in the article. Which he reverted immediately[103], giving only his POV as an argument.[104] --LucVerhelst 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) The references I provided (according to Intangible: "badly written articles") are from Knack,[105] about the only serious Dutch language Belgian weekly publishing about politics, comparable to Newsweek. You can't get a more reputable source than that, I should think. --LucVerhelst 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:LucVerhelst and editing the Vlaams Belang article[edit]

This subsection is a comment on and addition to Intangible's evidence.

  • My membership to Groen! : I already revealed my personal political stance on 17 Dec 2005 : [106]. If there is doubt about the neutrality of my edits, I would welcome very much any example. I feel this is an ad hominem attack.
  • Chasing away User:1652186 : the editor launched several personal attacks on me, and apparantly couldn't stand it when I confronted him/her with that.
  • User:Xoloz's comments : when asked for clarification, this was his answer : [107], and my reply : [108]. I asked not to remove the user page of 1652186 because it contained what I believe was a personal attack on myself. I wanted to keep it for future use as evidence.
  • Entering WP:OR into an article : User:Intangible was adamant on entering a parliamentary study as a reference, which gave purely legalistic arguments about the Vlaams Blok trial, thus misrepresenting the real consequences of this trial, which amounts to POV on Intangible's account. I was trying to find some middle ground, which is apparantly is almost impossible, working with Intangible.--LucVerhelst 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to note that

  • Intangible apparantly only provides evidence attacking others, instead of providing examples of his own positive cooperative edits, that would mitigate the allegations, and would help his case.
  • The above is an example of his confrontational style of editing.
  • Intangible seems to be targeting me, while I'm not a party in this case. (--LucVerhelst 08:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

--LucVerhelst 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Intangible[edit]

User:LucVerhelst and editing the Vlaams Belang article[edit]

User:LucVerhelst is a politician of Groen! [109], which is almost the 'opposite' party as the Vlaams Belang. Although I have never held this against this user, I do think a certain conservativeness is required by him when editing the article of political opponents. Another user, User:1652186, stopped editing Wikipedia after becoming vatigued with User:LucVerhelst. An administrator, User:Xoloz has commented on their behaviour here: [110] and [111].

Insinuations by User:Cberlet[edit]

  • User:Cberlet made an insinuation [113] on June 3, 2006, that I was somehow "sytematically [sic] going through Wikipedia sanitizing articles about neo-fascist movements," saying I was a apologist for neofascism. I really like to now on the basis of what edits User:Cberlet can make such an outrageous claim.
  • Another insinuation here [114], while I provided a cite shortly thereafter [115].
  • And here, calling me a "pest" [116]. If User:Cberlet thinks I am "stalking" him, then why does stalk me on the talk page of the Front National article [117] or here [118][119] (my first edit on that article [120]).
  • Putting me on the WP:AN/I board, for no apparent reason [121]. Other users have commended me for the work on these categories [122][123]. Intangible 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other people on my editing[edit]

[124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130].

Editing by User:Tazmaniacs, User:AaronS and User:WGee[edit]

Since these editors presented evidence here, I would also like to inform ArbCom of their editing.

Front National consensus[edit]

  • I reached a consensus with User:Marcus22 for the introduction of the Front National (France) article on July 1, 2006 ([143][144]) It was really tiresome to then see editors come out of the blue (User:Cberlet, User:Tazmaniacs, User:David.Monniaux, User:Dahn), who could have participated in the consensus building earlier, but rather thought that it was best to start anew. It really is pointless to reach a consensus after some considerable work on a talk page, when others just throw out this consensus in no time, just out of the blue! Intangible 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to assertions made by User:LucVerhelst[edit]

First assertion[edit]

  • "Arbitrary deletion or reversion without proper discussion or consensus: Diffs: [145]" This was a study of the 1999 elections of the party Vlaams Blok, which does not exist anymore. It is now 2006, there is a different party, Vlaams Belang. The edit by User:LucVerhelst was WP:OR. Intangible 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second assertion[edit]

Third assertion[edit]

  • No reply, since there is no third assertion. Intangible 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth assertion[edit]

  • "Sanitization of articles about right-wing groups or individuals: Diffs: [162], [163]" The first one of these edits is to remove a POV piece by an organization that sued the Vlaams Blok (the predecessor of the Vlaams Belang). Hardly an impartial observer here; the critism of this organization can already be found in the 70 steps plan (Belgium) article, where the criticism belongs. The second edit is not sanitization, I merely removed the wikilink here, because the definition set forth in the Wikipedia article is not necessarily the same definition the quoted person uses (especially in this case). A certain conservativeness is needed when applying wikilinks to direct quotes (Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Specific issues). Intangible 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is also "sanitizing" ([164])" [165] Again User:LucVerhelst does not show the intermedia edits in this diff, which show my rational: [166][167] Intangible 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth assertion[edit]

Sixth assertion[edit]

  • "Gaming discussions & walking editors in circles: Diffs: [169], [170]" There is no gaming here, Matthias Storme is a member of the New-Flemish Alliance party, not the Vlaams Belang.
  • Neoconservative case: This was a bad article, not to be used as source for Wikipedia articles. That I was correct in my analysis here was also noted by another editor here [171]. Intangible 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) This goes for the later comment of User:LucVerhelst (" I proposed a middle ground, upon which Intangible simply stated that he didn't agree, providing just his POV as an argument. He didn't react to my request for suggestions to improve, so I put the middle ground proposal in the article. Which he reverted immediately[172], giving only his POV as an argument.[173]" ) as well. See [174] Intangible 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to assertions made by User:Cberlet[edit]

First assertion[edit]

  • "Arbitrary deletion or reversion without proper discussion or consensus: Diffs: [175]; [176]; [177]; no discussion, against consensus; wholesale;" About the first edit here, I already noted the reason for this in an earlier edit [178], because these were all political opinions from irreputable sources (like blogs) (see WP:RS). About the second edit, this is not even deletion, which User:Cberlet seems to suggest. The reason for my edit was given a short time later on the talk page [179]. About the third edit, there were some anonymous changes before that [180], which changed the introduction of the article, and were not discussed on the Vlaams Belang talk page. About the fourth edit, I just reverted the anonymous vandalism [181][182]. About the fifth edit, this section is about the Vlaams Belang party program, which does not include "Islamophobia". The sixth and last edit was not a wholesale revert. It was a content dispute, where User:Nikodemos inserted unreferenced material into the article ([183]). But this was resolved between us on the talk page ([184][185][186]). Intangible 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second assertion[edit]

Third assertion[edit]

Fourth assertion[edit]

  • "Sanitization of articles about right-wing groups or individuals: Diffs: [195]; [196]; [197]; [198];" About the first edit, I was the originator [199] of the piece of text in question. I provided a direct quote from newspaper articles here [200]. Again, the quote says what it says, no real need for wikilinks there. About the second edit, this section is about the Vlaams Belang party program, which does not include "Islamophobia". About the third edit, FrontPageMag.com is a on-line magazine, not an organization, so this was a wrong categorization. About the fourth edit, this piece is still unsourced. I only corrected at least the notion that somehow Salvador Allende was elected, he was appointed by the National Congress of Chile. Intangible 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth assertion[edit]

Sixth assertion[edit]

  • "Gaming discussions & walking editors in circles: Diffs: [213]; [214]; here; user talk go round" About the first edit, this was a pointed response to the outrageous notion User:JKelly made [215]. This was after I gave numerous sources saying that an element of Fascism is collectivism [216]. No sources were provided to the contrary by other editors. User:Cberlet then simply dismisses these sources [217], by making a claim that my sources are not reputable, will these are all from reputable sources and/or refereed scholarly journals. Who is biased here? Somehow there is a double-standard here by User:Cberlet. About the second edit, Category:Right-wing parties and organizations allows for ambiguous categorization. What organization is right-wing, what organization is left-wing? Where is one going to draw a line? About the third edit, this is not about walking editors in circles. I was the first on to supply a source to this article [218]. The talk page is about how User:Cberlet misinterprets this source, believing that what the source says is New Right corresponds with the American New Christian Right, which is not what the source is claiming. About the fourth edit, User:AaronS is a very stubborn editor, who never presents sources, but simply disputes any source an editor bring to an article, as in this case with my source [219]. Somehow his point of view is enough to dismiss any source, while sources are heavily needed for this article Anarchism in the United States.
  • "The following Diff's illustrate the rapid-fire aspect of trumping other editors and brushing aside attempts at consensus in a relentless and POV way: [220],[221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231]."
    • These are cheap insinuations:
    • This edit [232] is about a claim made in the Front National (France) which does not follow from the source.
    • This edit[233] speaks for itself. Note also the text just below that.
    • About [234], I simply note that User:Tazmaniacs inserted the term "sinistrisme" to the Front National (France), which is not a English term, and not even widely used at all! [235]. Somehow he believes that every French term can just be translated into English, without any semantic problems arising.
    • This insinuation [236] is ridiculous. Can I not even present a quote from an academic journal on a talk page anymore?!
    • This edit [237] is about semantic differences between terms in the French language and English language. Therefore I suggested a split in the article [238]
    • This edit [239] speaks for itself. Note also the text just below that.
    • This edit [240] is about a claim made in the Front National (France) which does not follow from the source.
    • About this edit [241] , I give a justified reason why I reverted his edits.
    • in this case [242] for example, I simply reverted erroneous edits by User:Eduard8964. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Dutch citizen, although born in Somalia.
    • This edit [243] is about a claim made in the Front National (France) which does not follow from the source.
    • This edit as well [244]. I agree this is a pointed response, but this is only because the other user makes claims that do not follow from the sources the user presents.
    • About the time period of these edits, these were made in a time span of two hours, hardly can call that rapidly. And as showed, there is no problem with these edits. Intangible 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible/Evidence&oldid=431105675"