User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Background 1.2 My position 1.3 WP:AN request 2 Evidence by FT2 2.1 Example user comments (8 users) 2.2 Recent events (20 Jan onwards) 2.3 Editors commenting on users driven away 2.4 Breaches of policy and good practice suggested by various editors 2.5 Present editors' feelings 2.6 Note of additional importance of dispute 3 Other contributions 4 Intent to disrupt 5 Possible alternative view 6 Behavioral analysis input 7 Further requested information 7.1 Comment

[edit] Overview

WP:AN post prior to likely action, to seek views and recommendations of other WP:AN observers.

User involved: Ludvikus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Submitted by: user:FT2

[edit] Background

I am mediating on a heavy edit dispute on Philosophy. Existing discussion of a community ban was suspended to allow time for this. There is a near-universal consensus that one editor is responsible for much of the current situation and the failure of attempts to resolve it. After some involvement I have come to concur that this editor may indeed need to be addressed so that mediation can then prove viable for the rest.

Consensus seems to agree that some form of enforced solution is needed. I have had to reprotect the article (protected since December 30, unprotected Jan 16). A significant number of independent editors have indicated either a terminal problem, an impossible situation, or a view that a "ban" is needed. Although I stand neutral to all of the editors, I have come to agree that there are good reasons why a decision in this area is now essential 'up front'. I do not consider mediation likely to help unless that situaton is resolved, although I continue to try, and with regards to RFC the article has already had many views - including neutral uninvolved ones - and it is still plausibly the sense of things that the conduct of this named editor (at the least) is central to the present state of the discussion.

There is a solid history of conduct that plasibly supports a view that the RFM will achieve little, and that lesser measures (RFC) will achieve little, and that the delay is driving possible valued or expert editors away from the subject area and project. Accordingly I feel it's appropriate to proceed directly to a formal view one way or the other on this specific point first.

[edit] My position

As a neutral party who has not disputed directly, I have come to feel that settling Ludvikus' position and status in the project before going further is the key. I wish to be clear that I am doing so as mediator who has reached a view on an intense edit war, and not as an article participant. I still have no editorial view on the article content or dispute "sides" as such, nor have I exchanged any incivility with the editor named.

I have refrained from taking any "side" at any time, and this request does not change that -- I will continue to avoid taking "side" in the future editorial debate beyond attending to good conduct, policy and civility, and I continue to treat the editor concerned completely on a par with other editors, as regards his view on philosophy on the talk page. His editorial conduct must however be finally sorted out before I can fairly ask more of the other participants to the discussion.

Although I bring this matter forward, I am clear that I'm doing so primarily for others. I will list the small amount of evidence I can attest, but my expectation is that others will have far more pointed comments to make. Conduct in an edit war is best cited by those who watched it develop. Note that tempers have been sorely tested; accordingly both sides will probably be able to cite some misconduct (eg incivility or excessive reversion) or other at some time.

As a mediator, I therefore have a position of deliberate choice to have no view on what's already happened, or on article content, but only on matters which prevent resolution or sustain the edit war. I now feel that clarification (and probably a decision on approach one way or the other) on Ludvikus is necessary in order to have a chance of making further mediation progress in future.

[edit] WP:AN request

Specific reasons why I'm seeking feedback from WP:AN before going further:

1. I'm no expert on Philosophy. So I can't judge or check as I usually would, whether the additions are "incoherent" or POV, and nor I suspect can most editors. I am obligated to rely not on DIFFS showing bad content, but on the strong consensus (including at least two sysops and two users who assert lectureship or PhD in Philosophy), multiple statements of people leaving the article or Wikipedia due to experience of Ludvikus, and his recent non-philosophical behavior including large amounts of posting and rants/appeals to Jimbo, which tend to support the views seen and heard.
2. Participants are moving for a community ban, and since I don't know whether Ludvikus will end up at WP:AN for consensus, or RFArb for hearing, I wish to present the case as I have found it, for a neutral preliminary view how other admins view it.
3. As I'm not myself a co-disputer but a mediator, I want to present my impressions to others for their feelings and their views.

[edit] Evidence by FT2

This statement summarizes the observations which taken together have led to a view that although many editors are involved in the edit war, one editor is pivotal to it persisting. The points I myself have concluded are that:

1. The editor concerned is the subject of significant consensus by many independent others
2. Others feel that he has no basis to expect more rope, and are now near-universally looking for arbitration and a ban
3. The editor concerned has recently made posts which taken together tend to support a lack of balance, judgement of conduct, and recognition of the need to change.
4. The editor is viewed by others/consensus as being "out of control" to the extent of being unable to be brought into reasonable editing conduct by peer request, despite a long period in which many requests were made for better conduct.
5. The editor is driving others away, including expert editors (lecturers/academics in the subject) needed to assist with technical aspects of the article.
6. Today's edits ["recent edits"], of an "out of left field" nature, tend to add strong support to this kind of impression.
7. Examination of other articles shows similar patterns on many
8. A talk page post (quoted below) suggests long term disruption with little respect or valuing of communal goals.
9. Well intentioned editors should have reasonable expectation of a pleasant editing environment, as the rule. When (inevitably) disputes arise they should nonetheless have reasonable expectation of fair conduct and a genuine intent to collaborate from a project/policy-oriented point of view by all parties, whatever their views.

[edit] Example user comments (8 users)

1. Banno has stated:

• [1] "I have been asked on my talk page to commence an WP:RFC on Ludvikus. However, I think that there is enough evidence here now to implement a community ban for disruptive editing. Specifically ... His editing ... is tendentious ... his affectation of martyrdom is tedious. He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. ... [snip examples - see below] ... His comments about [Mel Etitis] are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts 'operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors'."
• [2] "I wasn't asking for your advice; but simply if you would object. I've used the arbitration process enough to know that it is far too slow - the very reason that community bans were introduced"

2. Dbuckner has stated:

• [3] "I agree wholeheartedly with Quiddity's summary ... There were disagreements before but nothing like this ... Ludvikus is, as the man says, heading for an RfC"
• [4] "RfC: - Let's do it tomorrow."
• [5] "completely out of control" and view that mediation has proven "hopelessly optimistic"
• [6] "persists on posting long rambles about pet subjects (mostly OR), such as McCarthyism ... Ludvikus is obsessive (follow his edit trail) making dozens or even hundreds of edits a day, works through the night and is utterly tireless ... He will discuss changes, but in a prolix and unproductive way that makes cooperation tiresome ... His changes are unsourced."

3. JJL has stated:

• [7] "Regrettably, I have to largely agree with Dbuckner who identifies the source of the problem as a particular person ... To my mind the writing style is less of an issue--as that could be edited--than having a 'mission poster(s)' who believes he or she is not only right but that what he or she has to say is so important that it must be said. I have largely hung back from editing due to the atmosphere here (including what are now repeated page locks) ... the loss of my limited knowledge in this area is of much less concern than the fact that so many of those who care about and are deeply knowledgeable about the subject are being frustrated and demoralized, which would have many undesirable effects...including leaving the page to the most tenacious posters."

4. KD Tries Again has stated:

• [8] "I am afraid I arrived at the main Philosophy article after going through combat - rather than editing - at the Analytic/Continental article, which in the end was rightly deleted - only to find the main editor of that article (Lucas/Lucaas) reproducing the deleted material in the Philosophy article, aided and abetted by another editor [Ludvikus] whose contributions are entirely unsuitable (to the point, as I inappropriately commented, of risibility). As for being a superlative editor, thanks Ed, but I haven't really had the chance. The page can't currently be edited because of the tireless resistance of L and L. I think the situation does need to be handled formally at a higher level ... I will gladly support measures to get the article back in the hands of people who can edit it properly."
• [9] "Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that Scandinavia is an English-speaking country, that Karl Marx was a contemporary commentator on 1950s politics, that Russell deemed Principia Mathematica somewhat of a success. A reversion war has ensued, understandably I think. I would support locking the page, on a version without the crap obviously. I can see no other way to compel editors to respond to correction of obvious errors on the Talk page rather than just republishing the same errors." [Unclear if this is Ludvikus, but seems likely; KD to correct if mistaken] [Correct. He claimed authorship here[[10]], and I have no reason to doubt it.]KD Tries Again 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

5. Lucidish has stated:

• [11] "I've spent a year on this article, and have at least some idea of what the usual state of quarrelling is like. The most recent situation is a departure from the norm, in the sense that there are frequent battles that are literally grounded upon nothing, but whose consequences are more or less tragic. The cause is that some parties are simply not willing to discuss anything with other editors -- they completely and persistently ignore what has been said to them, and then produce reams of material against imaginary demons ... The mere expression of a single point of view is taken to be a violation of NPOV policy ... The problem editors have closed their ears. Nothing can be done so long as their behavior continues as it has."

6. Mel Etitis has stated:

• [12] "deeply uncivil ... baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy ... tirelessly logodiarrhoeic ... and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines ... Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess."

7. Quiddity has stated:

• [13] "The present problem seems to be Ludvikus trying to take over, and he's on course for an RfC for editwarring and personal attacks if he keeps it up. It might be more complex than that? Sorry it's not much to go on."
• [14] NPA: "You would also both be better off if you ignore the biographies and names of your fellow contributors. Discuss proposed text, NOT your own or others personal philosophies. Specifically, Ludvikus, stop calling people 'philosopher king' and 'Professor' as sarcastic reference to username and claimed profession..."

8. Richiar has stated:

• [15] "This editor Ludvikus is entirely out of control, and I am telling you, unless some action is taken to deal with this, it will go on indefinitely, and ruin the effort of collaboration in the philosophy section"

[edit] Recent events (20 Jan onwards)

• [16] Block for 48 hrs 20 Jan 2007, for disruptive editing, tending to suggest at least one other uninvolved sysop saw evidence suufficient to draw this conclusion too. (Banno)
• [17] response to comment implying comparison of Ludvikus to the Bristol Stool Scale (clinical scale used for recording faeces). Response included extreme over-reaction, and "demand to admin" to "do something" by exaggerated speech (eg: comments about newspapers, Jimbo Wales, the reputation of Wikipedia, demands for immediate action &c).

original post Ludvikus response Ludvikus letter to Jimbo Wales

• [18], [19] A minor flurry of two weird semi-uncivil, semi-provocative posts immediately following the above.

[edit] Editors commenting on users driven away

• [20] "His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on his removing himself from the Wikipedia." Banno

• [21] "Maybe (but not likely to be honest) I'll return to look at it in the Easter vacation ... I hope to keep contributing the odd philosophy-related article, but Philosophy itself I'll leave to others (and good luck to them)." Mel Etitis

• [22] "I feel badly about this, especially in view of the horrible state of the Philosophy article, but I don't hink that I can continue to be involved. Ludvikus seems to be genuinely mentally ill ... I wish Dbuckner and the other sensible voices luck, but I am afraid that I think that you are fighting a losing battle. The Wikipedia article is good for only one thing: a perfect example of what non-philosophers think that philosophy is" Peter J King (Oxford University Lecturer in Philosophy)

• [23] "I am no longer working on the Philosophy article. Conditions on the talk page make it impossible." Dbuckner

• [24] "Situation desperate -- This is not just disruption, its total chaos. I regretfully submit, per request for participation, that a ban on said individual is essential. Comment on the remark: 'He's actually improved lately'-well, no, he just recycles ... I further submit, that this situation is so bad, that experts in the field of philosophy have been driven away, which is tragic to the Wikipedia project. To this I stongly object ... It means the difference between having an encyclopedia and the national enquirer." Richiar

[edit] Breaches of policy and good practice suggested by various editors

• WP:POINT - disruptive editing, possible gaming of system
• WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA - inappropriate lack of civility or personal attacks
• WP:OR - describing/presenting personal views and opinions as if mainstream
• WP:NPOV - imbalance and bias towards non-notable views, failure to respect neutrality
• WP:NOT - whatever Wikipedia is, it is not a long monologue, or a battleground
• WP:EW - edit warring guideline
• WP:DE - disrupive editing guideline
• WP:BITE and WP:OWN (?) - per Quiddity [25]

I also wouldn't be surprised to see WP:LAWYER come up, but I myself only have seen a mediocre cite for this right now.
(Update: More solid evidence came up, see below)

[edit] Present editors' feelings

A number of editors have stated they wish a community ban, by testing consensus on WP:AN/I:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked ... Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block ... Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus..."

In the event that this is impractical, arbitration would be likely to be requested for long term restriction on editing articles such as (1) Philosophy, Mathematics, and their related subjects and talk pages and (2) Judaism, Zionism, Communism, Antisemitism, and their related subjects and talk pages. But these are almost the entirety of the articles he does edit.

Again, I expect that if there is merit to this view, then others will add statements with the detailed cites of past conduct to support it. If not, then that will make itself clear.

[edit] Note of additional importance of dispute

Philosophy is a "core topic" article, at least for Wikipedia 1.0. (See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics).

Prolonged or very damaging edit warring is therefore of more serious concern than on some articles, especially if the view of multiple editors that it renders the article unusable due to poor quality or drives high quality editors away is eventually deemed valid.

[edit] Other contributions

See: WannabeKate's tool on Ludvikus

Ludvikus' major area is Philosophy. Checking other articles I find:

1. His second area by talk post volume is the commonly-agreed racist fabrication Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he posted this rant on Freemasons planning to take over the world, making unilateral edits to reflect this in the article introduction.
2. His third area by talk post volume is Jewish Bolshevism on which he posted this opinion and this view-pushing.
3. His fourth by talk post volume is Occupied territories, another issue where Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism are hotly debated. I found this there. (User:Jpgordon has stated "I decline to edit war with you" on this article following Ludvikus' edit of the history section.)
4. A disparaging comment which tends to support other editors who have stated likewise [26] [27].

Sadly I come to the view that the editor is felt by others to have consistently made low quality contributions. The good points made were overwhelmed on many article I had examined, by poor and disruptive matters, characterized by the same features as Philosophy: - large numbers of posts, strong sense of "a message that must be said", major rewrites expressing OR+POV, categorization by co-editors as edit warring, some fair or good points vastly overshadowed by problematic ones, disregard for reasonable conduct (wikiquette, consensus, concerns, policies, requests to cease editing patterns etc), and so on.

It seems that far from supporting a case that Philosophy is an exception due to editorial conflict, they support a view that concerns related to Ludvikus will probably apply to any article he edits, at this time. He appears almost entirely motivated in his editing by a wish to present his own views on Philosophy and on Jewish/Zionist/Antisemitism history and controversies, mostly heedless of others and of reasonable practice. I have seen some good points and edits, but far more often (in what others call an "out of control" manner) other editors seem to view him as resorting to obsessive disruption, OR-based argument and views, and ill focussed rants in lieu.

[edit] Intent to disrupt

Disturbingly, whilst preparing this page, I came across one last post, which seems to me to show serious willful disruption and blatent lack of interest in any reasonable level of communal standards. I think it's worth quoting in full.

Excellent, Lucas, I'm proud of you It's so great to find another non-nonentity in this cyberspace beside myself! Why not play the martre? It's fun. But also - it's Philosophy -Socrates? I think you still under-estimate me, wile my esteme for you grows by the minute. You know - I'm going soon to get Rorty's 2007 book you cited - "schism"? Page number please? Believe me - I know exactly what I'm doing - and it is for Philosophy, Wikipedia, me, and you. Whatever happens, you be the Rational one, let me play the Madman/Martre/Napoleon/etc. if I see fit - and I do love it so. Playing Napoleon, in cyberspace, with wepons like that Bristol Stool Chart? There is this wonderful dialectic going on which only you and I see. By the way, my Email is available. Your's is not. Make it so. We could then communicate secretly, as we uncover Dbucker's Cabal. I hope when we're done, we'll get on with philosophy. You know, of course, that Dbuckner is after you as well? Anyway, it's the only place you can play the martyr and not get actually killed. I'm also facinated by the extent that the mediocre tends to dominate this space. Again, let me make you take notice, I have many years of New York so-called 'Civil' litigation experience. [WP:LAWYER refers]. So it's right up my alley. Stay cool, and level headed. Best regards, User:Ludvikus PS1: You notice, of course, that Db is loosing already? PS2: Again, Lucas, you eloquence is most reassuring. Keep it up! PS3: As a child, youg, boy, etc., did you engage in fisticuffs? Or are you of a completely mild and unprovocable character? Is the no limits to the insults which you can endure Cowboy - not your thing? Sincerely --Ludvikus 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A user who writes this is in a difficult position of their own making when such posts are reviewed by third parties. They cannot hope for such posts to be seen positively by the community as a whole. As a mediator, it is unreasonable to expect others to be able to work with an attitude such as is evidneced here.

[edit] Possible alternative view

As a neutral observer it is appropriate to note there is a minority view, broadly that Ludvikus has in the midst of this put some valid points, that others are not entirely free of uncivil words, and that others are not entirely free of their own bias in the subject towards traditional approaches. I mention these on the same basis as above - if there is any substance to them, others will add cites and comment accordingly.

Note however:

• One editor (Lucas/Lucaas) who has expressed elsewhere, support for Ludvikus, himself is felt by some editors to be on the borderline or unreasonability too: [28], [29].

• Other editors (where they have bias) appear to be biased towards the views of reliable sources, rather than their own OR, and have broad or at least manageable consensus. (q: but is this similar in its own way to SPOV?) However I don't get the impression they are seeking to impose bias nor in mediation have they shown signs of seeking to reject appropriate minority views.

Talk:Philosophy/Workshop refers.

---

I note in all the above "evidence" that it has been produced by only one side. Many of the above edits are taken out of context and do not show how the provocation initially occurred (which may indicate another culprit) nor do they show rebuttals that were made. In any fair dealings you must seek to present both sides. I note that even in presenting the other side you do so with prejudice. So I consider the above quotes as solely evidence, so to speak, "from the prosecution", without any side for the defence being admitted I would have to call this whole procedure a "mistrial" and a perversion of justice. In addition, any views garnered from others on the basis of the above "evidence" is then inadmissable. -- Lucas (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Behavioral analysis input

(Edit commented out - FT2)

[edit] Further requested information

Section One

From the Philosophy talk page, user Richiar makes an offer to help with encyclopedic standards, then tries to make a humorous comment. The retorts by User Ludvikus sound abusive and taunting.

I am willing to take that on as a project-er, excuse me a minute-I have to go double up on my Prozac just at the moment. Richiar 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's ok, take your time, get your Prozac. I'll just ask everyone to waite.
• Administrator User:Mel Etitis, would you please hold everything until the men gets his Prozac, as he requests?
• I'm certainly willing to accomodate the man.
• And User:Quiddity, would you kindly take note of the man's request in the compilations on your User Space, as is your custom?
• How about you, User:Dbuckner, will you take careful note of the matter in your so-called "Musium"?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry gentlemen if I neglected you, but I myself, simply had to get something to eat.
• Dear User Ben S. Nelson, will you hold on while the man gets his Prozac - as he requests?
• And how about you, Administrator User:Banno - may the man get his Prozac, as he asks? If I'm repetitive, Banno, it's because I'm worried you might not notice the issue - just as you have done with the "Bristol Stool Chart" and "Don't be a dick" matter? Where, again, does that come from? Is that a page you've created yourself? I cannot seem to find it now. Would you please accommodate me on this item? Where is it again?
• And I do not want to omit, User:Peter J King - you've expressed yourself as an authority on mental health - would you please step forward now and express yourself on the issues at hand?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Section Two

The comments below, placed on user Richiars talk page, might seem to convey an intent to disrupt, and an inappropriate attitude toward the editing community:

• Hey shrink, I think we need you!!!

Are you the one who did the abstraction of the views in philosophy? It's a wonderful contribution - although the heat among the disputants may have obscured some positions. The first person who may need your assistance I believe may be the above person (I shall refrain from naming him directly, to be gentle); he began his interjection with a discription of his nauseating psychological state. I don't blame him - I don't expect others to have my endurance.

• I am told he's a distinguished professor at Oxford - that makes me wonder why he elected to trivialize the role of Thales in the Western Intellectual tradition. We could definitely use YOU - perhaps you can help us regarding Ego-trips. I believe Napoleon was an ego-tripper; but hey, he was Napoleon - don't worry, shrink, I don't believe I'm Napoleon. . . .

• . . . .But the irony is that they have been so unsuccessful in winning [the debates] (about 3 individuals only) to their viewpoint, that they have resorted to irrational means - which also adds support to my point of view - that rationality is not what distinguishes philosophy.

The comments noted above lead me to think user Ludvikus is engaging in a willful campaign of disruption.

Richiar 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Comment left here: User_talk:FT2#Comment ObserverA 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)