Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Comment by LucVerhelst

Intangible has a very confrontational style. He seems to be unable to accept changes that are outside what he believes is the truth. The only way to bring NPOV into such articles, seems to be to go along with his tendency to start an edit war, an hoping that during the conflict a third party can convince him to partially concede.

I seem to find it harder and harder to go along with this confrontational style, and have a tendency to give up, letting him have his POV-truth.

Some examples :

• 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 : [1]. My answer on his talk page : [2], 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.
• Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits [3] and [4] : 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.
• 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". The page meanwhile has been blocked. The discussion on changes continues on the talk page, where he refuses to cooperate to find a middle ground, but instead suffises with trying to minimise the value of the sources provided. --LucVerhelst 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Lingeron (Shannon)

concerning the comment by AaronS: As AaronS breaks the 3RR himself, I would hardly take his complaints seriously. Here is an example of his disergard for the 3RR rule. [5] where User: AaronS makes 7 edits on July 12 and 8 edits on July 6.

AaronS calss this edit [6] a "dubious claim", I would call it inserting neutrality. Additionally AaronS complains that Intangible uses "a 120 year old reference" and calls it thus unreliable. If there is some connction between the age of a source and it's unreliablility I for one find it impossible to see.

I would dismiss as dishonest and frivolous the comments of this user, on these facts, alone.

concerning the comment by LucVerhelst: "Intangible has a very confrontational style. He seems to be unable to accept changes that are outside what he believes is the truth. The only way to bring NPOV into such articles, seems to be to go along with his tendency to start an edit war, an hoping that during the conflict a third party can convince him to partially concede." This is incorrect. Intangible does back up his edits with fact, both in the ariticle and in the discussion. These factual edits are then blatantly ignored by those that gather and bully this editor in an effort to maintain domination over an article. Here is an example: [7]

Here is an example of Intangible trying to get neutrality into anarchism [8]

If there are edit wars going on it is because there is no other ways to introduce fact into many articles. The edit wars are occuring because of the guard dogs of articles not the individual who wants to add facts that disagree with these guard dogs. I can personally attest to this as it is my experience as well.

concerning the comment by Tazmaniacs: "Intangible has decided to cut out the term far right wherever editorial consensus has judged it necessary." As consensus currently means the agreement of a group of socialist or left-leaning editors who bully and play mind games with any dissenting editor at Wikipedia now, consensus means cow flop. Then again, consensus often means as much in other instances. I would imagine there was consensus in some southern towns when the KKK lynched blacks who tried to vote or ride in the front of a bus, for example, and there was consensus when Jesus got nailed to a cross and left there to suffer and die. That is the extent of my impression of the evidence of Tazmaniacs and often of the over valued term consensus.

My experience with Intangible is that he is a good sound editor who has been harassed because he disagrees with the views of the above editors. His aim is only to get neutrality into an article. This arbitration case looks like a bullying attempt at getting rid of an editor who has only tried to contribute to an encycopedia and round out the POV of others. He also gets insulted a lot and doesn't attack back as a result, which is commendable. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Response by WGee

As AaronS breaks the 3RR himself, I would hardly take his complaints seriously. . . . I would dismiss as dishonest and frivolous the comments of this user, on these facts, alone. Shannon's argument to invalidate the opinion of AaronS is an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, and should accordingly be ignored by the arbitrators.

AaronS calls this edit [9] a "dubious claim", and rightfully so. That contribution by Intangible was unsourced and therefore constitutes orignal research. As Jimbo states, "[Unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."[10] Moreover, his attempt "to get neutrality into anarchism" made use of weasel words, which Wikipedia editors should avoid.

Additionally AaronS complains that Intangible uses "a 120 year old reference" and calls it thus unreliable. If there is some connction between the age of a source and it's unreliablility I for one find it impossible to see. There is certainly a connection between the age and the reliability of a source. If a source is 120 years old, for instance, there's a good possibility that it is not applicable to contemporary politics, which is full of changing trends, theories, and norms.

As consensus currently means the agreement of a group of socialist or left-leaning editors who bully and play mind games with any dissenting editor at Wikipedia now, consensus means cow flop. We could go on accusing each other of having left-wing or right-wing biases for ages, but it would accomplish nothing. Despite what you say, Tazmaniacs' inclusion of the term far-right has always been backed by an editorial consensus, with Intangible being the only detractor—take the consensus at the National Front talk page, for instance. There, not only can one see an editorial consensus, but a consensus amongst reputable sources, as well.

His aim is only to get neutrality into an article. One doesn't effect neutrality in an article by supressing a consensus amongst some of the most reputable, scholarly, non-partisan sources, as Intangible did in the National Front article. [11] [12] Instead of presenting multiple sources of equal esteem to support his claim that the National Front is not far-right (which would be the appropriate course of action), Intangible resorted to a specious, tangential argument about semantics to nullify the findings of the well-established, academic sources already in use. Because Intangible believes that the terms "left-wing", "right-wing", and their offshoots should not be used in political discourse, as Tazmaniancs noted in his earlier comment, he evidently feels it fit to ignore any source that uses the term. I, for one, believe that Intangible should not impose his minority POV on the editing process, nor should he have the right to unilaterally invalidate the findings of highly-esteemed, well-known sources based on his personal beliefs. If action is not taken by this arbitration committee, I am fearful that Intangible's editing streaks will harm the factual accuracy and credibility of multitudes of politics-related articles.

This arbitration case looks like a bullying attempt at getting rid of an editor who has only tried to contribute to an encycopedia and round out the POV of others. Rather, this arbitration case is intended to protect a class of articles from Intangible's disruptive, tendentious editing patterns.

-- WGee 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Procedural problems

For reference, see discussion following this post by me to WP:AN/I. --AaronS 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

confused

I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible? Intangible 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)