text:
User:Chronographos/Family letters

a letter to mom
Αντώνις Λόνγος Νειλούντι [τ]ηι μητρί π[λ]ίστα χαίρειν. και διά παντός εύχομαι σαι υγιαίνειν. το προσκύνημά σου ποιώ κατ' αικάστην ημαίραν παρά τώι κυρίωι [Σερ]άπειδει, γεινώσκειν σαι θέλω ότι ουχ [ήλπ]ιζον ότι αναβένις εις την μητρόπολιν, χ[ά]ρειν δε τούτο ουδ' εγό εισήλθα εις την πόλιν. αιδ[υ]σοπο[ύ]μην δε ελθείν εις Kαρανίδαν ότι σαπρώς περιπατώ. αίγραψά σοι ότι γυμνός ειμί. παρακα[λ]ώ σαι, μήτηρ, δ[ι]αλάγητί μοι. λοιπόν οίδα τι [εγώ?] αιμαυτώι παρέσχημαι. παιπαίδευμαι καθ' όν δί τρόπον. οίδα ότι ημάρτηκα. ήκουσα παρά το[υ Ποστο?]υμου τον ευρόντα σαι εν τώι Αρσαινοείτηι και ακαιρέως πάντα σοι διήγηται. ουκ οίδες ότι θέλω πηρός γενέσται ει γνούναι όπως ανθρόπωι [έ]τ[ι] οφείλω οβολόν;

verso: [Νειλούντι] μητρεί απ' Αντωνίωι Λόνγου υειού

Papyrus B.G.U. 846:1,120 Hunt-Edgar - (2nd century AD)

Antonis Longos to his mother Neilous, many greetings. I wish you health for ever. I pray for you every day to the lord Serapis. I want you to know that I didn't expect your coming up to the capital. That is why I did not come to town myself. I was ashamed to come to Karanis, as I walk dressed in rags. I wrote you that I am naked. Mother, I beg you, reconcile with me. Now I know what [I?] brought upon myself. I have suffered duly. I know that I have been wrong. I heard from [Posthumus?] that he met you in the (nome of) Arsinoites and inopportunely told you everything. Don't you know that I'd sooner become an invalid than know that I still owe anyone a penny?

Reverse: To mother [Neilous] from (her) son Antonios Longos

a letter to dad
Απίων Επιμάχωι τώι πατρί και κυρίωι πλείστα χαίρειν. προ μεν πάντων εύχομαί σε υγιαίνειν και δια παντός ερ[ρ]ωμένον ευτυχείν μετά της αδελφής μου και της θυγατρός αυτής και του αδελφού μου. ευχαριστώ τωι κυρίωι Σεράπιδι ότι μού κινδυνεύοντος εις θάλασσαν έσωσεν ευθέως. ότε εισήλθον εις Μησηνούς έλαβα βιατικόν παρά Καίσαρος χρυσούς τρείς. και καλώς μοι εστίν. ερωτώ σε ουν κύριέ μου πατήρ, γράψον μου επιστόλιον, πρώτον μεν περί της σωτηρίας σου, δεύτερον περί της των αδελφών μου, τρ[ί]τον ίνα σου προσκυνήσω την χέραν, ότι με επαίδευσας καλώς και εκ τούτου ελπίζω ταχύ προκόσαι, των θεών θελόντων. άσπασαι Καπίτων[α π]ολλά και τους αδελφούς [μ]ου και Σε[ρηνί]λλαν και το[υς] φίλους μο[υ]. έπεμψά σο[ι ει]κόνιν μου διά Ευκτήμονος. έστι δε μου όνομα Αντώνις Μάξιμος. ερρώσθαι εύχομαι. Κεντυρί[α] Αθηνονίκη.

verso: Εις Φιλαδελφίαν Επιμάχωι από Απίωνος υιού. Απόδος εις χώρτην πρίμαν Απαμηνών Ιουλιανού Αν[τονίωι?] λιβλαρίωι από Απίωνος ώστε Επιμάχωι πατρί αυτού

Papyrus B.G.U. 2.423: 1,112 Hunt-Edgar - (2nd century AD)

Apion to Epimachus his lord and father many greetings. First of all I wish you health, perpetual strength and happiness with my sister, her daughter and my brother. I thank the lord Serapis for saving me just when I was in danger at sea. When I arrived at Mesenoi (a military port) I received my wayfare from Caesar (i.e. the Roman state), three gold pieces. And all is well with me. I ask of you, my lord and father: write me a little letter, first about your health, second about that of my brothers and sisters, third that I may kiss your hand, for you have brought me up well and because of this I hope soon to prosper, the gods willing. Many kisses to Kapiton, and to my brothers, and to Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture of me with Euktemon. My (military) name is Antonis Maximus. I wish you strength. Centuria Athenonike.

Reverse: To Philadelphia for Epimachus from (his) son Apion. Deliver to the First Cohort of the Apameans, to Julian An[thony?], the secretary, from Apion for his father Epimachus.

a letter to bro
Σεμπρώνιος Μαξίμωι τωι αδελφώι πλ[ε]ίστα χαίρειν. προ των όλων ερώσθε σε εύχομαι. μετέλαβον ότι βαρέως δουλεύ[ου]τε την κυρίαν ημών μητέραν. ερωτηθείς άδελφε γλυκύταται, εν μηδενί αυτήν λύπει. εί δει τεις των αδελφών αντιλέγει αυτήι, συ οφείλεις αυτούς κολαφίζει[ν]. ήδη γαρ πατήρ οφίλεις καλείσθαι. επείσταμε ότι χωρίς των γραμμάτων μου δυνατός εί αυτήι αρέσε, αλλά μη βαρέως έχε μου τα γράμματα νουθετούν[τ]ά σε, οφίλομεν γαρ σέβεσθε την τεκούσαν ως θε[όν], μάλιστα τοιαύτην ούσαν αγαθήν. ταύτα σοι έγραψα, άδελφε, επειστάμενος την γλυκασίαν των κυ[ρί]ων γονέων. καλώς π[ο]ιήσις γράψας μοι περί της σ[ωτ]ηρίας υμ[ώ]ν. έρρωσό μοι, άδελφε

verso: απόδος Μαξίμωι από Σεμπρωνίου αδελφού

Papyrus R.E.G. 1919, p. 204: 1,121 Hunt-Edgar - (2nd century AD)

Sempronius to his brother Maximus, many greetings. First of all I wish you strength. I was informed that you impose heavily upon our lady mother. I beg you, sweetest brother, do not make her worry about anything. And if one of our brothers objects to her, you ought to slap them! For you should be named father already. I know that even without my letters you may comfort her, but do not begrudge my letters of admonishment, for we owe reverence to her who gave us birth, as if to a god, especially since she is so good. Ι wrote you these, brother, knowing the sweet love (of children) towards the lords their parents. You will do well to write me about the health of you all. Be well, my brother.

Reverse: Deliver to Maximus from Sempronius, (his) brother

Comments
1. Total confusion between ι, ει and η, meaning that they were already pronounced as -i-, while some established -ει- spellings are simplified to -ε- (χέραν, compare identical modern Cretan usage). Y and οι are still spared.

2. Total confusion between αι and ε, meaning that they were already pronounced as -e-.

3. Pronunciation of β as -v- (βιατικόν, viaticum)

3. Disregard for spiritus asper (κατ' αικάστην), and for spiritus lenis (ουχ' ήλπιζον'').

4. Pronunciation of double consonants as single ones (ερώσθε)

5. Simplified thematic declension of athematic nouns ("Καρανίδαν", "μητέραν", "χέραν").

6. Usage of the Nominative in lieu of the Vocative (μήτηρ for μήτερ, πατήρ for πάτερ)

7. Simplified conjugation of irregular verbs (οίδες for οίσθα, γνούναι for γνώναι), confusion between similar-sounding but different forms of irregular verbs (έρ(ρ)ωσθε - ερρώσθαι), simplified conjugation of regular verbs (έλαβα for έλαβον), temporally inappropriate usage of infinitives (προκόσαι) and participles (ερωτηθείς, γράψας).

7. Simplification of diminutive suffixes (εικόνιν), or suffixes that resemble them (Αντώνις'')

8. Increasing avoidance of the Dative in favor of the Accusative (εις θάλασσαν for εν θαλάσσηι)

title: User:Chronographos/Family letters


text:
File:FlaminalsBookCover.jpg

Summary
Flaminals book cover

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:FlaminalsBookCover.jpg


text:
User talk:Philoponus

Rien d'autre a dire!!

title: User talk:Philoponus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accoona

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Accoona

 * Delete Accoona is a spyware-like site. It is not what it claims. It has no own search tech as it claims, instead gathers search results from sites like Overture. Wikipedia is neither an advertisement medium nor a home for 'false claims'. --218.41.113.27
 * If you search with Accoona, and see the results, everything is linked through Overture, a Yahoo! site, so it is not what it claims.
 * I searched on Google for Accoona Clinton and Google suggested correction of spelling to Acoona, which means, Accoona is not a popular term in the Internet.
 * Keep If it really has Bill Clinton as a spokesperson, it's worthwhile to have an article about it. - Chris Wood 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because (1) It seems relatively notable, and (2) Inaccuracies and being a "spyware-like site" are not grounds for deletion. It's not advertising, either CanadianCaesar 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and use improve or NPOV tags if necessary. It's not whether the article is bad, it's whether the topic is valid for the encyclopedia. DavidH 04:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Businessweek confirms Clinton, and [ChinaDaily] acknowledges some form of affiliation. I am rather leery of their "artificial intelligence" claims, though, and bringing the page up to encyclopedic standard would be a good. Eldereft 07:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable website, regardless of contemptible practices. - Thatdog 08:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very interesting article -- but do ensure it has NPOV.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accoona


text:
Fred Stovall

Fred Alonzo Stovall (September 17, 1882–October 8, 1958) was the founder of an oil drilling company and the Negro league baseball team the Monroe Monarchs.

Born one of four brothers in Dallas, Texas to J.H. Stovall and Frances (née Giard), he attended local public schools. At the age of 19, in 1901, he went to the oil fields of South Texas and joined a drilling outfit operating at Spindle Top near Beaumont. For foue worked for Bob Allison of Shreveport, Louisiana before setting up on his own account in Monroe, Louisiana in 1917. With no capital, the Stovall Drilling Company was fragile at first, but he developed it into one of the largest drilling contractors in the Southwest USA. He owned and operated the J.M. Supply Company (a machine shop with extensive repair facilities), and the Tiger Factory and Machine Works of Monroe. He also co-founded Commercial Transportation, Inc. to operate a fleet of tugs and barges on the Ouachita River. He was assisted in his businesses by two of his three brothers.

On October 21, 1907 he married Fay Wherry (March 10, 1885–June 19, 1966) of Rusk, Texas with whom he had two sons, Earl and J C. Both sons joined their father in his business ventures.

In the late 1920s, Stovall built a recreation complex for the Monroe black people because he felt it appropriate to offer free facilities to the people who helped him earn his living. The complex included a baseball park, a swimming pool and a dance pavilion. He subsequently supported the formation of the Monroe Monarchs baseball team and in 1932 he organized the foundation of the Negro Southern League of five professional black teams.

title: Fred Stovall


text:
User:Encyclops

Welcome to my user page!

My interest in Wikipedia. (June 2006) I have a poor memory so I like to use Wikipedia to look up information on subjects that I am (or was) interested in but cannot recall exactly. If the information is missing from Wikipedia I will sometimes research the subject and add an entry so I can find it the next time around. You might say I use Wikipedia like a personal filing cabinet, one that has the advantage of being accessible from multiple locations and shareable with others. It serves as a kind of collective memex. (April 2011) Wikipedia's coverage is now so large that I don't find much that needs to be added. I do continue to review and make small changes to some articles now and then.

Topics. One of the subjects I like is Applied mathematics especially those parts that are commonly used by engineers and economists/finance people like myself. I am not a mathematician, just a user of relatively elementary mathematics.

A test page I use to edit stuff is here User:Encyclops/Testpage and a second one here User:Encyclops/Testpage2

title: User:Encyclops


text:
George Crawford (Canadian politician)

George Crawford (1793 – July 4, 1870) was a founding member of the Senate of Canada. A Conservative, he was appointed to the Senate on 23 October 1867 by Royal Proclamation, and served in that capacity until his death.

He was born in County Leitrim in Ireland in 1793 and came to Upper Canada in the 1820s. After moving to York, (later Toronto), he became a contractor in construction and worked on the Rideau, Cornwall and Beauharnois canals. He served as lieutenant-colonel in the Leeds militia. He was also president of the Brockville and Ottawa Railway.

Around 1844, he moved to Brockville. He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada representing Brockville in 1851 and 1854. In 1858, he was elected to the Legislative Council, the upper house at that time, and served until 1867, when he became a member of the Senate of Canada.

One son, John Willoughby, was elected to the House of Commons of Canada and served as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. His son James represented Brockville in the House of Commons.

title: George Crawford (Canadian politician)


text:
Mayhem (crime)

Mayhem (from Anglo-French maiuhem, from Old French mahaigne ("injury, damage, wrong, etc."), cognate to ) is a common law criminal offense consisting of the intentional maiming of another person.

Under the law of England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions, it originally consisted of the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a person's ability to defend themselves in combat. Under the strict common law definition, initially this required damage to an eye or a limb, while cutting off an ear or the nose was not deemed to be sufficiently disabling. In the many years since, the meaning of the crime expanded to encompass any type of mutilation, disfigurement, or crippling act done using any instrument.

History of definitions
In England and Wales, it has fallen into de facto disuse. In 1992 the Law Commission recommended that it be abolished, and in 1998 the Home Office proposed to abolish it, in the course of codifying the law relating to offences against the person.

Fetter v. Beale
The most significant change in common-law mayhem doctrine came in 1697, when the King's Bench decided Fetter v. Beale, 91 Eng. Rep. 1122. There, the plaintiff recovered in a battery action against a defendant. Shortly thereafter, "part of his skull by reason of the said battery came out of his head", and the plaintiff brought a subsequent action under mayhem. Though Fetter is also known as an early example of res judicata, it is most significant for expanding the ambit of mayhem to include "loss of the skull".

Modern doctrine
In modern times, the offense of mayhem has been superseded in many jurisdictions by statutory offenses such as:

 * Aggravated battery
 * Grievous bodily harm

United States
Modern statutes in the U.S. define mayhem as disabling or disfiguring, such as rendering useless a member of another person's arms or legs. The injury must be permanent, not just a temporary loss. Some courts will hold even a minor battery as mayhem if the injury is not minor. Mayhem in the U.S. is a felony in all states and jurisdictions, including federal. In the states of California, Vermont and Oklahoma, mayhem is punishable by up to life imprisonment. In other states where laws defining mayhem (or maiming) are in place, the maximum punishment for mayhem is generally 10 to 20 years, and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment may also apply, depending on the laws of the state. If mayhem was committed in an aggravated fashion, such as in the case of where it resulted in permanent disability or disfigurement, the punishment is generally much more severe, and may even include life imprisonment. For example, simple mayhem in California is punishable by two to eight years in prison, whereas aggravated mayhem is punishable by up to life imprisonment.

Etymology
Both the noun mayhem and the verb maim come from Old French via Anglo-Norman. The word is first attested in various Romance languages in the 13th century, but its ultimate origin is unclear.

Etymology of other meaning
The term "wreaker of mayhem" was, accurately, originally used for a person going on a rampage (onslaught) in the glorified setting of a just war. After such uses, the term abounded for centuries in journalese, such as reporting "rioting and mayhem", which readers misunderstood as meaning "havoc, chaos or pandemonium", and started the usual modern use of the word "mayhem". There is also the term "general mayhem" which involves a lot of anti-social activities happening.

title: Mayhem (crime)


text:
Dragonchess

Dragonchess is a three-dimensional fantasy chess variant created by Gary Gygax, co-creator of the famed role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. The game was introduced in 1985 in issue No. 100 of Dragon Magazine.

Boards and pieces
The Dragonchess gameboard consists of three 12×8 chess boards stacked vertically. The upper board (blue and white) represents the air, the middle board (green and amber) represents the land, and the lower board (red and brown) is the subterranean world.

The Dragonchess game pieces (42 per player) are an ensemble of characters and monsters inspired or derived from fantasy settings in Dungeons & Dragons. Intricate inter- and intra-level game piece capabilities are defined. As in chess, White moves first and then players take turns, and the game is won by delivering checkmate (inescapable attack) to the enemy king.

Sylph (S)

 * On level 3:
 * can move without capturing one step diagonally forward, or capture one step straight forward (i.e. like a Berolina pawn, but without promotion or an initial two-step option).
 * can capture on the square directly below on level 2.
 * On level 2:
 * can move without capturing to the square directly above on level 3, or to one of the player's six Sylph starting squares.

Griffon (G)

 * On level 3:
 * can move and capture like a zebra, i.e. it can move two steps diagonally followed by one step orthogonally outward, jumping over any pieces in between.
 * can move and capture to level 2, to a square diagonally adjacent to the square directly below (i.e. one step downward along a space diagonal).
 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture one step diagonally;
 * can move and capture to level 3, to a square diagonally adjacent to the square directly above (i.e. one step upward along a space diagonal).

Dragon (R)

 * on level 3, can move and capture either any number of squares diagonally or one step orthogonally (i.e. like a dragon horse in shogi, or a combined king and bishop from standard chess); it can never leave the upper board.
 * can capture remotely (without leaving level 3) any piece that stands on the square directly below on level 2 or any square orthogonally adjacent to that square.
 * it can only capture one piece at each turn, and the remote capture counts as a full move (i.e. the dragon may not move on level 3 and then capture remotely).

Warrior (W)

 * on level 2, can move without capturing one step straight forward and capture one step diagonally (i.e. like a chess pawn but without the initial two-step option); it can never leave the middle board.
 * promotes to a Hero upon reaching the furthest rank.

Oliphant (O)

 * on level 2, can move and capture like a chess rook (i.e. any number of squares orthogonally); it can never leave the middle board.

Unicorn (U)

 * on level 2, can move and capture like a chess knight (i.e. one step orthogonally followed by one step diagonally outward, jumping over any intermediate squares); it can never leave the middle board.

Hero (H)

 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture one or two steps diagonally (jumping over the intermediate square if moving two steps).
 * can move and capture to levels 1 and 3, to a square diagonally adjacent to the square directly above or below (i.e. one step along a space diagonal).
 * On levels 1 and 3:
 * can only move and capture back to level 2, again to a square diagonally adjacent to the square directly above/below (i.e. one step along a space diagonal).

Thief (T)

 * on level 2, can move and capture like a chess bishop (i.e. any number of squares diagonally); it can never leave the middle board.

Cleric (C)

 * On any level:
 * can move and capture one step orthogonally or diagonally (like a non-royal chess king).
 * can move and capture to the square directly above or directly below on an adjacent level.

Mage (M)

 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture any number of steps orthogonally or diagonally (like a chess queen).
 * On levels 1 and 3:
 * can move one step orthogonally (like a wazir).
 * On any level:
 * can move and capture one step or two steps directly above or directly below to one of the other levels.

King (K)

 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture like a chess king (i.e. one step orthogonally or diagonally).
 * can move and capture to the square directly below on level 1 or directly above on level 3.
 * On levels 1 and 3:
 * can only move back to the square directly above or below on level 2.

Paladin (P)

 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture as a chess king or as a chess knight.
 * On levels 1 and 3:
 * can move and capture like a chess king.
 * On any level:
 * can move to the other levels using a knight-like move: one level up or down followed by two steps orthogonally, or two levels up or down followed by one step orthogonally.

Dwarf (D)

 * On levels 1 and 2:
 * can move (without capturing) one step straight forward or sideways, or capture one step diagonally forward.
 * can capture directly upward from level 1 to level 2, and move (without capturing) directly downward from level 2 back to level 1.

Basilisk (B)

 * on level 1, can move and capture one step diagonally forward or straight forward, or move (without capturing) one step straight backward; it cannot leave the lower board.
 * automatically freezes (immobilizes) an enemy piece on the square directly above on level 2 (whether the Basilisk moves to the space below or the enemy piece moves to the space above); the immobilised piece may not move until the Basilisk moves away or is captured.

Elemental (E)

 * On level 1:
 * can move and capture one or two steps orthogonally;
 * can move (without capturing) one step diagonally;
 * can capture in the following pattern: one step orthogonally, followed by one step straight upward to level 2.
 * On level 2:
 * can move and capture in the following pattern: one step directly downward to level 1, followed by one step orthogonally.

Move notation
Recording moves is done the same as in algebraic notation for chess, extended to a 12×8 board, with the addition of a numeric prefix (,, or ) in front of each square coordinate to identify the level. So for example, White's Elemental starts on square 1g1 (level 1, square g1); Black's King starts on 2g8; and so on.

title: Dragonchess


text:
Józef Zawadzki (chemist)

Józef Zawadzki (July 14, 1886 in Warsaw – February 22, 1951 in Zalesie, near Warsaw) was a Polish physical chemist and technologist. Father of Tadeusz (Zośka) and Anna Zawadzka.

Zawadzki was a co-founder, President and Vice-President of the Polskie Towarzystwo Chemiczne. He was a professor (from 1923) and rector (1936–1939) of Warsaw University of Technology, and a member of the Polish Academy of Learning (since 1947).

The oldest and largest traditional lecture hall at the Warsaw University of Technology is named Prof. Józef Zawadzki Auditorium.

Research
His main field of research was physicochemical fundamentals of chemical technology. He was researching contact oxidation of ammonia, naphthalene and anthracene, mechanism of ammonia oxidation on platinum at low temperatures, reduction of iron dioxide by a methane, methods of obtaining aluminium oxide from Polish kaolinite and aluminosilicate, use of Polish anhydrite and gypsum deposit to production sulfuric acid and cementum, kinematics of thermal dissociation.

Under the German occupation of Poland during World War II, he was involved in the clandestine operation of the Warsaw University of Technology. Together with Marceli Struszyński, Zawadzki analyzed captured German V-2 rocket for its fuel composition. In 1947, he was recognized with a Doctor Honoris Causa.

Mechanism of ammonia oxidation on platinum at low temperatures
The mechanism of ammonia oxidation on platinum at low temperature was postulated by F. Rachsig (1927) and later adapted by Zawadzki (1948, 1950) to proceed via formation on imide (NH). In this proposal formation of nitroxyl and hydrazine (N2H4) is involved:

 * NH3 + O(a) → NH(a) + H2O
 * NH(a) + O(a) → HNO(a) + *
 * NH(a) + NH3 → N2H4(a)
 * HNO(a) + NH3 → N2H4(a) + ½O2
 * N2H4(a) + O2 → N2 + 2H2O + *

Later, Y. M. Fogel (1964) disproved the Zawadzki theory that NH is formed via the oxidation of ammonia. In his proposal, NO is an important intermediate of the reaction. The formation of N2O is not detected, therefore the mechanism does not involve its production.

Works

 * Technologia chemiczna nieorganiczna vol. 1–2 (1948–1949)

title: Józef Zawadzki (chemist)


text:
Talk:Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges

Untitled
"Although his making religion the sole factor of this evolution was a perversion of the historical facts, the book was so consistent throughout, so full of ingenious ideas, and written in so striking a style, that it ranks as one of the masterpieces of the French language in the 19th century."

Why would this be a "perversion of the historical facts"?

"Fustel de Coulanges was the most conscientious of men, the most systematic and uncompromising of historians."

This, as well as much of the article, sounds rather biased.

somebody added this little tid-bit "This article is ludicrously reverential. If the author wrere still alive it would be called brown-nosing."

It should probably be removed but the article does need to be toned-down a little.199.76.188.135 (talk)

 * Please note that our article was extracted from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It may well have been carried forward from an earlier edition. NRPanikker (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Link to works:
BTW.: I found one: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/

title: Talk:Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges


text:
Ontario Cancer Institute

The Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI) is the research division of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, affiliated to the University Health Network of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. As Canada's first dedicated cancer hospital, it opened officially and began to receive patients in 1958, although its research divisions had begun work a year earlier. Because, at that time, a stigma was associated with the word "cancer", the hospital was soon renamed the Princess Margaret Hospital, although the whole operation was called the Ontario Cancer Institute incorporating the Princess Margaret Hospital, or OCI/PMH. Clinicians usually preferred the hospital name, while the scientists used OCI.

The original location of the OCI/PMH was at 500 Sherbourne Street in Toronto. In 1995, the whole operation moved to a new building at 610 University Avenue, and the new Princess Margaret Hospital became part of the University Health Network. The OCI continued as the research arm of the PMH, that in 2012 changed its name in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

title: Ontario Cancer Institute


text:
Crossair Flight 3597

Crossair Flight 3597 was a scheduled flight from Berlin Tegel Airport, Germany, to Zürich Airport, Switzerland. On 24 November 2001, the Crossair Avro RJ100 or BAE Systems 146 operating the route, registered as crashed into a wooded range of hills near Bassersdorf and caught fire. Out of the 33 occupants, nine survived.

Aircraft
The accident aircraft, an Avro 146-RJ100, with registration HB-IXM, manufactured in 1996, had its Maiden flight on 16 August, and logged more than 13,000 hours and 11,500 cycles in total before the crash. The airplane was delivered to Crossair on 23 August 1996. The aircraft was powered by four Lycoming LF507-1F turbofan engines.

Accident
Flight 3597 departed Berlin Tegel Airport at 21:01 CET with 28 passengers, three flight attendants, and the cockpit crew consisting of Captain Hans Ulrich Lutz (57) and First Officer Stefan Löhrer (25). Lutz was a highly experienced pilot with more than 19,500 flight hours, approximately 19,300 of which were as pilot in command. Löhrer, in contrast, was inexperienced, with just 490 total flight hours.

Upon arrival in Zürich airspace, about an hour after takeoff, the pilots were cleared for an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 14, but were switched to a VOR/DME (VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment) approach to runway 28 due to a noise abatement statute after 10:00 p.m. There were poor visibility conditions due to low clouds, and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured the transmission of a previously-landing Crossair flight informing air traffic control (ATC) that they could not see the runway until 2.2 nmi away. At 22:07 CET, Flight 3597 crashed into a wooded range of hills near the small town of Bassersdorf, around 4 km short of the runway, where it broke apart and burst into flames. 24 people died, including the 2 pilots and 1 attendant, while 7 passengers and 2 attendants survived.

Passengers

Flight 3597 was carrying a total of 33 people. 5 crew members and 28 passengers were on board.

Among the 24 people that died in the accident were Melanie Thornton, the former lead singer of the German Eurodance duo La Bouche, and singers Nathaly van het Ende and Maria Serrano Serrano of the German Eurodance trio Passion Fruit; the groups third singer, Debby St. Maarten and manager were among the 9 people that survived.

Swiss businesswoman and politician Jacqueline Badran and her husband Peter Hoegenkamp were among the survivors of the crash.

Investigation
While Captain Lutz was an experienced pilot, his competence soon came under close scrutiny by investigators from the Swiss Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). The AAIB would conclude that the accident was a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) caused by a series of pilot errors and navigation mistakes that led the plane off-course. This course deviation caused the plane to crash into a hilltop, 4.05 km short of and 150 m north of its assigned landing strip, runway 28.

Flight 3597 had originally been scheduled to land on runway 14, the main landing runway at Zürich, which was equipped with an ILS system that provides vertical and lateral guidance to the runway. The CVR records Lutz and Löhrer discussing "the 14 approach" as well as Lutz's request that Löhrer call out the height when the plane reached 100 feet above DA (decision altitude – the altitude at which an immediate decision to land or initiate a missed approach must be made). However, Flight 3597 was behind schedule and would not reach Zürich until after 22:00 CET, necessitating a change to its landing plan. Zürich ATC, in order to comply with a new Swiss law designed to reduce airport noise from approaching aircraft over southern Germany in the late evening hours, redirected all flights on final approach to switch from the ILS-equipped runway 14 to the less-accurate VOR/DME-equipped runway 28. This runway change forced Lutz to abandon his planned ILS approach and required Löhrer to consult the Jeppesen charts for runway 28. The charts included a new set of approach parameters, of which the higher minimum descent altitude (MDA) was the most crucial piece of information.

The MDA states the minimum altitude in MSL to safely fly above any obstructions or terrain in the final approach flight-path before visual contact with the runway is made. Unlike a DA in a precision approach, an MDA requires that after crossing the Final Approach Fix, the pilot should descend and maintain MDA until the pilot reports that the runway is in sight, allowing the landing to safely be completed visually. In contrast to the ILS approach, which displays lateral and vertical position, the VOR/DME approach only shows the lateral position of the aircraft and its range to the runway. Due to increased azimuth error associated with the use of VORs and lack of vertical guidance (glide slope), the MDA is therefore often higher than a DA (Decision Altitude) for an ILS.

Although both pilots were based in Zürich and the CVR picks up Lutz's query to Löhrer about Löhrer's familiarity with "the 28 approach", which Löhrer confirmed he had, Lutz put the plane into an overly-steep descent that brought Flight 3597 to MDA far too soon. When Löhrer reported the plane reaching 100 feet above MDA, the CVR records Lutz asking Löhrer, "Do we have ground contact?" Löhrer hesitated before replying, "Yes". However, flight simulators programmed with the time of day, terrain, and weather Lutz was facing at that time allowed investigators to determine that the only ground Lutz or Löhrer could see was the ground of the hilly terrain over which the plane was flying. Upon reaching MDA of 2400 ft, Lutz declared that he had "ground contact" and would continue on, then deliberately descended the plane below the MDA without having the required visual contact with either the approach lights or the runway, a major piloting error that ultimately led to the crash. The fact that Löhrer made no attempt to prevent the continuation of the flight below the MDA also contributed to the crash. Lutz made an additional error by not monitoring the DME as he made his approach; the CVR recorded Lutz's running narrative on nearly every move he made in the cockpit, but did not record any readout of the DME after a check, verified by Löhrer, at 6 nmi from runway 28. Moments before the crash, Lutz's running commentary indicated to investigators that he thought he was at or near 2.2 nmi from runway 28 because he said, "Someone said he saw the runway late here". Instead, Lutz was over 4 nmi from the runway, and could not possibly have seen the runway due to the presence of a hill below the MDA of 2400 ft, which obscured his view. Just before the crash, the synthetic voice of the ground proximity warning system (GPWS) announced the radio altimeter reading 500 feet above ground. Lutz exclaimed, "Shit, two miles he said, he sees the runway!" A few seconds later Lutz said, "Two thousand" and then one second later the synthetic voice gave the "minimums" GPWS message, which was triggered by the radio altimeter reading at 300 feet. Even though Lutz finally realized that his inability to see the runway meant he needed to initiate a missed approach maneuver (called a "go-around"), his call for the go-around came too late; the plane's engines were not able to spool up fast enough to generate sufficient thrust to climb above the hill that had been obstructing his view, and the plane crashed into the hilltop at 22:06 CET.

Final report
The AAIB report determined that Lutz had failed to perform correct navigation and landing procedures on previous occasions, but no action had been taken by Crossair to remove him from transporting passengers. Lutz had twice failed to upgrade his flight certifications to the more complex MD-83 due to insufficient comprehension of its computerized navigational systems. The report also documented Lutz's role in causing the total loss of a Crossair Saab 340 by retracting its landing gear while it was still on the apron, which led to Crossair relieving him of his flight instructing duties in 1991.

In spite of those demonstrated deficiencies, however, Crossair continued to allow Lutz to fly passengers (reportedly due to a shortage of qualified pilots), and he continued to demonstrate his overall deficiencies as a line pilot. These included a near-miss incident on final approach to Lugano Airport where Lutz came within 300 ft of colliding with the shore of Lake Lugano during a dangerous 4000 ft-per-minute descent and a navigational error during a sightseeing tour over the Alps that took the flight far off its course to Sion. In this particular incident, Lutz missed his approach into Sion and circled over what he thought was Sion's airport for several minutes before passengers spotted road signs in Italian; the navigational error had taken them over the Great St Bernard Pass, and the airport they had been circling was in fact Aosta Valley Airport in Italy.

The final report of the AAIB states that other factors also contributed to the accident:

 * The range of hills the plane crashed into was not marked in the Jeppesen approach chart used by the crew.
 * Despite the hilly terrain surrounding it, the approach to runway 28 was not equipped with a Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) system, which triggers an alarm if a minimum safe altitude is violated.
 * Zürich Airport's means of determining visibility were inadequate for runway 28.
 * The visual minimums at the time of the accident were actually inappropriate for using the standard approach to runway 28.
 * An inexperienced air traffic controller was alone in the control tower. A more experienced controller might have allowed the flight to land on runway 14 because of the poor weather conditions.

Dramatization
The hourlong Discovery Channel Canada / National Geographic TV series Mayday featured the crash in a Season 10 episode titled Cockpit Failure in 2011 and featured an interview of Peter Hoegenkamp, one of the survivors of the crash.

On 28 November 2021 the crash was featured in a German news report for the 20th anniversary of Melanie Thornton's death and it featured an interview from Debby St. Maarten about how she survived and that she knew that her group mates were dead during the events of the accident.

title: Crossair Flight 3597


text:
ABC 7

ABC 7 may refer to one of the following television stations in the United States:

Owned and operated stations

 * KABC-TV, Los Angeles, California
 * KGO-TV, San Francisco, California
 * WABC-TV, New York City, New York
 * WLS-TV, Chicago, Illinois

Affiliate stations

 * KATV, Little Rock, Arkansas
 * KETV, Omaha, Nebraska
 * KHQA-DT2, a digital channel of KHQA-TV, Hannibal, Missouri/Quincy, Illinois
 * KLTV, Tyler, Texas
 * KMGH-TV, Denver, Colorado
 * KOAT-TV, Albuquerque, New Mexico
 * KRCR-TV, Chico / Redding, California
 * KSWO-TV, Lawton, Oklahoma
 * KTGM, Guam (cable channel; broadcasts on channel 14)
 * KVIA-TV, El Paso, Texas
 * KVII-TV, Amarillo, Texas
 * WBBJ-TV, Jackson, Tennessee
 * WDAM-DT2, a digital channel of WDAM-TV, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
 * WJLA-TV, Washington, D.C.
 * WKBW-TV, Buffalo, New York
 * WPBN-DT2, a digital channel of WPBN-TV, Traverse City, Michigan
 * WTRF-DT3, a digital channel of WTRF-TV, Wheeling, West Virginia
 * WVII-TV, Bangor, Maine
 * WWSB, Sarasota, Florida (cable channel; broadcasts on channel 40)
 * WXYZ-TV, Detroit, Michigan
 * WZVN-TV, Naples, Florida (cable channel; broadcasts on channel 26)
 * ZFB-TV, Bermuda (broadcasts on channel 19.7; branding is by former analog channel number)

Formerly affiliated

 * KBZK, Bozeman, Montana (1987 to 1993)
 * WJHG-TV, Panama City, Florida (1953 to 1982)
 * WNAC-TV, Boston, Massachusetts (1961 to 1972)
 * WTVW, Evansville, Indiana (1956 to 1995)

title: ABC 7


text:
User talk:Marym123

hey, i'm mary, i really don't know what to put in this page, so u could maybe e-mail me and tell me?

title: User talk:Marym123


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI

Case Opened on 15:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties
Party 1:

Party 2:

Statement by User:AI
The basis of my disputes with MarkSweep is over refactoring and reverts. MarkSweep's opinion is that refactoring should not be done without consensus.

With reference to Wikipedia policy, I explained to MarkSweep why I removed some comments. He responded with an opposing opinion and continued to revert my removals. My refactoring was justified and supported by the policies that I referenced for him. My refactoring has not affected those discussions and I have been unbiased by removing my personal comments and those by others. MarkSweep is still reverting my contributions and apparently not considering my arguments in the related talk pages.

My 3rr block the other day was a technicality, I only "reverted" 3 times, the 4th was because I made a mistake in my 3rd "revert." I tried to explain this to User:Jdforrester and the admin who blocked me, Jdforrester disagreed and the admin who blocked me has not responded to my Wiki-email.

MarkSweep confrontation with me mainly consists of his "policing" of my contributions and arguing in the talk page about personal comments/attacks. He has not significantly contributed David S. Touretzky but maintains a presence there which creates the effect of consensus with Kelly Martin. In concert with Kelly Martin, he attempts to enforce his opinion about removing personal remarks as if he is an authority.

--AI 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by MarkSweep
User:AI has used a very idiosyncratic interpretation of civility and associated policies to censor comments on talk pages. He has engaged in edit warring, and attempts to contact him are rebuffed with him saying that he is unwilling to engage in any further communication on user talk pages.  Attempts to debate him on article talk pages are reverted by him as "personal comments/attacks". What AI labels "personal comments" by others are not so much comments about him (those would be personal comments), as they are comments directed at him, for example, reminders to respect NPOV, which are perfectly acceptable and only natural on talk pages.

What is especially worrying is that AI apparently intends to hide behind his interpretation of the letter of certain policies without respecting the spirit in which they were crafted. He remained undeterred in his removal of other editor's comments even though he was reverted several times by different editors and was eventually blocked for a 3RR violation. Some of AI's earlier interactions were more along traditional lines, discrediting his opponents, listing them for Wikiquette violations, or attempting to file an RFC against them. As that proved ineffective, he started to show an active interest in policies that would allow him to remove comments, and his subsequent statements make it clear that he apparently intends to follow a letter-of-the-law approach (while still using his own unique definitions of crucial terms like "personal comment" and "credible source"). The fact that he tries to enforce the No-Personal-Attacks/Civility policy aggressively while blatantly violating other policies like 3RR indicates that he is not interested in Wikipedia policy as a tool for facilitating the smooth operation of the project. Instead, he uses whatever policies may suit him as a means to silence editors who don't agree with him or who question his motives.

I'm bringing this case to the ArbCom fairly early in the dispute resolution process for two reasons: (1) AI has made it clear that he cannot be reasoned with; (2) this is an attempt at Fixing Broken Windows before further damage is caused. Let's nip this in the bud before it spirals out of control. In fact, let's make this short and sweet: AI needs to hear from someone with authority that he cannot censor and ignore comments as he wishes. If that message is conveyed successfully, no further actions are required. Consider this the "small claims" division of the ArbCom, if you will. The way things are headed, if you dismiss this as "too early, come back later", this case will indeed come back later, but will be a major headache then, as opposed to a minor annoyance now. --MarkSweep 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[To James F.:]

 * See this diff: . --MarkSweep 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And this: . --MarkSweep 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by NicholasTurnbull
User:AI's handling of communication and constructive criticism on Wikipedia has been unpleasant and evasive. This user has arbitrarily edited my reasonable comments on Talk:David S. Touretzky on the grounds of "removing personal attacks" on multiple occasions (see, , ) and reverted my restoration of them (see , , ). It is my opinion that my comments were reasonable (albeit firm), and were merely reporting on the facts of the matter at hand. In addition, User:AI has avoided addressing the specific points in my reasonable requests for the use of reputable sources in article writing on this user's talk page, communicating rudely to me whilst avoiding the question when answering and refusing to conform to NPOV policy (see my messages on User_talk:AI, ; for AI's response on my talk page,   , ). In addition, User:AI has accused me of making personal attacks, which is an untrue accusation (ref. ). --NicholasTurnbull 00:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I must, however, report that following recent communication today with this user, User:AI responded politely and pleasantly to my most recent message on his talk page. Thus, I believe that it may be possible for the matter to be resolved without recourse to disciplinary measures and shows a willingness to cooperate on this user's part. --NicholasTurnbull 23:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It should be noted by the arbitrators that, contrary to the statement made by User:AI above, "Repeated personal attacks directed towards me by Modemac, Antaeus Feldspar and a few others in several article talk page.", User:Antaeus Feldspar has never made a single edit to the disputed Talk:David S. Touretzky talk page, which can be verified through the edit history for that page, and I cannot find any possible basis for claims of said attacking comments on any talk pages for either of those cited users. --NicholasTurnbull 00:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)
''Please see Michael Snow's comments above: AI is currently blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't know how this is done, but I'd like to put this request on hold temporarily until AI has had a chance to respond.'' --MarkSweep 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * AI has indicated that he is preparing a statement. --MarkSweep 20:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Recuse - I'm in the thick of this one, and will be contributing evidence. I urge its acceptance, however - David Gerard 09:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral; would like to see AI's response, first. James F. (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Given AI's reticence to bother us with his decision, we shan't wait. Accept. James F. (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. I see no need to jump through hoops to get AI to make a statement; it's only to his benefit to do so. →Raul654 22:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Neutralitytalk 07:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept - this is going to get us into what constitutes a personal attack? and when is it appropriate to remove a personal attack? and who should be removing them? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Wikipedia policies
1) All users are welcome to suggest changes to Wikipedia policies such as No personal attacks. However suggested changes or interpretations do not become policy unless they are adopted by community consensus.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Article talk pages
2) Article talk pages are intended for discussion of editing and sources cited in the article they are attached to. In the course of such discussion, such dialogue may properly include information about editing behavior.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks
3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. . It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.
 * Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Account which exhibit the same pattern of behavior can be treated as one user
4) In instances where a user or small group of users with the same behavior pattern have used a number of accounts, for the purposes of Arbitration, they may be treated as one user.

 * Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who are in a legal dispute with Wikipedia
5) A Wikipedia user who is involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia may be banned until the legal dispute is settled or resolved.

 * Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) Disputes between and other users including the two users who brought this complaint,  and  mainly concern articles about critics of Scientology, Keith Henson and David S. Touretsky.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mutual disrespect
2) Interactions between and other editors are characterized by mutual disrespect, including personal attacks, see

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring by AI
3) has removed dialogue a number of times from article talk pages in what they describe as refactoring  , this behavior has included edit warring on talk pages  . In contradiction to No personal attacks he has adapted his own idiosyncratic version of the policy which he has attempted to apply. This has interfered with communications with other users ,.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing on David S. Touretzky
4) AI has repeatedly edited the article on David S. Touretzky, a critic of the Church of Scientology, to include material disparaging of him.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
5) has edited from a number of anonymous ips which may include:      (blocked proxy)   , see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/AI/Proposed_decision and recently.

 * Passed 4 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI's dispute with Wikipedia
6) states that he is involved in a dispute with Wikipedia, declaring his intention to "destroy Wikipedia" by "legal means",.

 * Passed 5 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

AI prohibited from "refactoring"
1) is prohibited from removing dialogue of any sort from any talk page or rearranging any talk page, including material which, in AI's opinion, constitute "personal comments" or personal attacks. This does not apply to their own user talk page.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI prohibited from CoS articles
2) AI is prohibited from editing any article related to the Church of Scientology. If they should violate this, an admin may ban them for a short period (up to 24 hours). For repeat offenses, they may be banned for up to a week per violation.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI restricted to one account
3) shall use that account and no other for editing. Extended editing by any anonymous IP which exhibits the behavior associated with User:AI shall be considered to be the edits of AI for purposes of application of this decision.

 * Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AI banned pending final resolution of legal disputes
4), under any user name or anonymous IP, is banned from Wikipedia pending final resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia.

 * Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement by ban
1) may be briefly banned if they removes any dialogue from any talk page other than their own user page. In the case of repeat offenses a ban may be up to a week.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of sockpuppet ban
2) Should edit under any other user account or for any extended period as an anonymous IP they may be banned for a month, and up to a year in the case of repeat offenses.

 * Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of ban pending resolution of disputes
3) Pending final resolution of all legal disputes between AI and Wikipedia, any edit by AI under any user name or anonymous IP may be removed immediately by any editor.

 * Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI

 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Party 1: --AI 10:14, 22 July 2005
 * Party 2: User:MarkSweep initiated this request, User:NicholasTurnbull joined voluntarily

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:AI has explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors. Attempts to engage him in discussion on his talk page are futile, because he deletes comments and explicitly refuses to engage in conversations.

A mediation request filed by User:Modemac regarding AI's behavior on has apparently failed. In any case, the problematic aspects of AI's behavior extend well beyond that single talk page (see e.g. ).

 * "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" contains lies. I will not submit further statement until the lies are corrected. --AI 11:00, 22 July 2005

 * AI, please tell us what you consider in the statement above to be lies so that we can do something about it; we cannot correct lies that we are unaware of. Please give us further information. --NicholasTurnbull 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What I consider to be a lie is that I have "explicitly refused [any] communication from ordinary editors." I have communicated with many ordinary users,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,.

 * Marksweep speaks POV instead of just providing simple explanation with evidence and letting facts speak for themselves. My view is definitely not idiosyncraic and is shared by others in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Surveys, also support my point of view regarding personal comments and refactoring talk pages.

 * MarkSweep has not reformed his misrepresentation of me in the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." His usage of these words is a personal attack. Marksweep's opinion that I will not try to resolve things is misguided and biased. Marksweep is not assuming good faith, especially considering his statement about fixing broken windows. Marksweep's comment about nipping it in the bud is biting a newcomer and admits in his statement that this request for arbitration is too early. There has been no RfC.

 * If you look at Banja Luka or Bosnian Genocide you can see I have went out of my way as a newcomer to mediate between two users who were in dispute and edit warring. Very little outside help from experienced users assisted that process. My efforts were successful. And in Muslim Brotherhood, I also volunteered as a newcomer (without asking for permission) to mediate disputes there. Even though I disagreed with Beroul's "apparent" whitewash, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and communicated with him civilly because he never tried to enforce his opinions about how I should behave.

 * Signed: --AI 01:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dear AI:

 * I appreciate your response to my query.

 * I understand that you have made many worthwhile and valuable contributions to Wikipedia - probably more so than I have. No one is disputing your ability to contribute. What we are disputing is your handling of communication and personal comments on Wikipedia so that you can learn to accommodate other users; I have no desire to see you excluded from the project - far from it. I merely have a desire for all parties involved on Wikipedia to have an adequate right of discussion and a collective goal towards NPOV.

 * However, the issue still remains regarding your previous blanking of user comments, a lack of flexibility in ensuring NPOV representation, and the use of POV source material. As far as I can determine, MarkSweep has shown his part of the proceedings as he saw it; bear in mind that evidence is his POV, and not the POV of the whole of Wikipedia. Arbitrators are sensible people, and are capable of telling the difference between accurate and inaccurate information; they shall be the final judge of whether MarkSweep's evidence is reliable or not.

 * Regarding your question as to why no RfC was brought - I am afraid the matter had already escalated beyond a point where an RFC would have been worthwhile. The reason for this is because you refused communication with a number of well-meaning editors on important subjects (I accept your statement above that you did not refuse all communication from all editors); refusal of communication is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, and sets an irreversible precedent towards an arbitration case. Further to this, that all possible dispute resolution steps had been tried, I did offer you an opportunity to have the arbcom case dropped entirely on promise of more consideration to user's messages in the future, from where you could have launched an RfM or RfC to resolve the existing disputes with other users, but you did explicitly refuse.

 * Also, please avoid using the "personal attacks" term in discussions, especially when referring to other editors; no matter how much you think that such an attack may have occurred, be the better man and avoid propagating it. Otherwise we end up being in a closed loop of accusing each other of personal attacks, which gets us nowhere.

 * I am sorry that the matter has ended in this respect, but there is very little I can do about the scenario now; it is entirely out of my hands. However, I do have no desire to see you blocked as a contributor, and I am sure that differences will be resolved in the matter.

 * Best regards and ARC,

 * NicholasTurnbull 13:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Nicholas, however, the issue is not really my handling of communication or personal attacks. The issue is the clique of Scientology critics here in Wikipedia who have been trying to find anything to stop me from entering substantiated critical data about critics of Scientology. This arbitration is their "solution" and is providing evidence of bias on the part of MarkSweep, Fred Bauer and some of the others. It has resulted in my initial decision to quit Wikipedia, but realizing this is what the critics ultimately I want I have shifted the responsibility to Wikipedia. After all it is Wikipedia's policies that they are abusing in order to get me to quit or banned. In this VfD I give Wikipedia one more chance to prove that it is fair not hypocritical. The article is based on a totally unverifiable source. See: Articles for deletion/Xenu Take note of the most some of the votes, they simply ignore my statement and post personal attacks. Meanwhile, the AMA which is well aware of my case probably does not care one bit which is why I have adopted the attitude that Wikipedia should be destroyed. --AI 04:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar and Szyslak's reverts of AI on September 14, 2005
AI made the following two edits to this case page, changing "/Workshop" to "/Slaveshop": , . His/her edits were reverted by Antaeus Feldspar: . Immediately afterward, AI reverted back, with the summary "+AI POV": , after which I reverted AI: . I think AI's edits can be safely called vandalism. [ +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 06:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did :) Now take a look at this if you want me to change my attitude about destroying Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision I could care less about what evidence you present against me or claim about my bad faith. The evidence against Wikipedia and it's contributors is atrocious. --AI 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

AI
Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit.  On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

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:.

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.

Evidence presented by User:AI
"(''NOTE: Do not edit this portion of evidence AT ALL unless you are an impartial arbitrator or if you have discussed it with AI and obtained permission. --AI 01:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC))"

14 July 2005

 * 15:56
 * I notified User:Modemac with questions about his POV contributions in Keith Henson.

 * 23:10
 * Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my messages.

15 July 2005

 * 10:25 - 10:26
 * I notified Modemac again with questions and arguments about my dispute of his POV contributions.,

 * 19:44
 * Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a reponse to my message.

18 July 2005

 * 09:52
 * User:NicholasTurnbull leaves subtle personal attacks implying that my sourcing is spurious and I do not "maintain" a NPOV in Talk:David S. Touretzky.

 * 15:19
 * Despite my opinion that NichalasTurnbull's comments are personal attacks, I responded to his posting in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

19 July 2005

 * 15:30
 * User:Marudubshinki corrected mispelling in my posting to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] and left personal attacks.

 * 16:06
 * I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to remove Marudubshinki's personal attacks and to correct Marudubshinki's editing of my postings(corrected my mispelling).

 * 01:15
 * I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 01:28
 * I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 01:33
 * I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky] and left a rebuttal to Modemac's claim that RFW is a hate group.

 * 01:40 - 01:47
 * I refactored [Talk:David S. Touretzky].,,

 * 01:49
 * Modemac reverted some of my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 02:10
 * I notified Modemac, asking why he made/restored personal attacks.

 * 02:13
 * I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.

 * 02:20
 * Modemac made personal attacks in his talk page as a response to my message.

 * 02:23
 * Modemac reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 07:19
 * NicholasTurnbull reverted my factoring of [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 22:40
 * I reverted [Talk:David S. Touretzky] to restore my refactoring with edit summary reference to policy about removing personal attacks.

 * 22:44
 * I notified Modemac with a warning.

 * 23:09
 * Modemac restored personal attacks.

 * 23:11
 * Modemac made uncivil comments and personal attacks in his edit summary.

20 July 2005

 * 01:00
 * Modemac restored personal attacks.

 * 01:13
 * Modemac filed a request for mediation.

 * 01:15 - 01:16
 * Modemac posts to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] that he has filed a request for mediation.,

 * 02:39
 * I post a message to [Talk:David S. Touretzky] questioning the basis for dispute.

 * 07:57
 * NicholasTurnbull reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 09:48
 * I made a contribution to David S. Touretzky with an edit summary which clearly expressed my changes.

 * 10:42
 * I reverted to restore my factoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 10:55
 * User:Joolz reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 11:47
 * User:MarkSweep reverted my refactoring in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 12:12
 * I notified MarkSweep with my explanation of my refactoring. In light of Modemac's RfM, I told MarkSweep I would not communicate with him any further unless he was a mediator.

 * 12:21
 * MarkSweep responded on his own talk page with his opinion.

 * 12:54
 * MarkSweep's first contribution to [David S. Touretzky] consisted of partially reverting my contribution.

 * 13:21
 * MarkSweep notified me with his opinion as to what defines "personal comments."

 * 13:53
 * MarkSweep notified me that he will file a request for arbitration against me.

 * 14:10
 * MarkSweep filed a request for arbitration assigning me as Party 1 and himself as Party 2. His statement contained a personal attack describing me as idiosyncratic and he states that I have explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors.

 * 16:14
 * MarkSweep's second edit to [David S. Touretzky] was in response to database errors or an edit conflict with me.

 * 22:53 - 22:54
 * Jdforrester filed a 3RR report on me.

 * 23:02
 * Jdforrester notified me of the 3RR violation.

 * 23:12
 * I notified Jdforrester the 4th was not a revert.

 * 23:17
 * Jdforrester notified me expressing his disagreement about the 4th revert.

 * 23:20 - 23:22
 * I notified Jdforrester about the disagreement.

 * 23:21
 * MarkSweep notified me with his opinion about personal comments, calling his opinion a "clarification."

 * 23:30
 * Jdforrester notified me with an explanation that he has not abused any previlidges.

 * 23:33 - 23:44
 * I responded to Jdforrester's explanation and redacted some of my misunderstandings.

 * Unable to verify time
 * When I tried to edit, I was informed by the server that I had been blocked for 3RR violation. User:Snowspinner statement was something to the effect of "blindly trusting Jdforrester". I never received notification from the admin to my talk page. Simply blocked. I appealed to Snowspinner with an email. Admin never responded.

21 July 2005

 * 00:35
 * MarkSweep notified me that his request for arbitration had been filed.

 * 14:54
 * I reverted to restore my contribution to David S. Touretzky.

 * 20:45
 * MarkSweep's third edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a revert of my restoration of my original contribution.

 * 22:09
 * Anon user (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) edited David S. Touretzky making some changes but also added some POV.

22 July 2005

 * 11:14
 * MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 11:40
 * I partially edited Anon user's (User:128.2.222.123 ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu) changes.

 * 12:15
 * MarkSweep reverted my refactoring on [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 23:48
 * MarkSweep attempted to delete one of my user sub pages with VfD.

22 July 2005

 * 12:21
 * MarkSweep's fourth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was a restoration of content which was deleted by me accidentally due to a database error or edit conflict. I was never in support of removal of that content.

 * 12:42
 * Joolz reverted my refactoring at [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 13:44
 * User:Calton makes personal attack in [Talk:David S. Touretzky].

 * 15:10
 * I posted a comment to Talk:Keith Henson about Keith's explosives background. No one answered my comment as of 25 July 2005.

 * 15:12
 * I changed [Keith Henson] according to my comment.

 * 15:16
 * Marksweep reverted my edit without discussion, only a brief comment in his edit summary.

 * 16:18
 * Because I agree with him partially I did not revert his edit, but only restored my contribution that he deleted.

24 July 2005

 * 03:49
 * User:Touretzky edited [David S. Touretzky] and left an edit summary "no such post as "scientific director"; my degrees are in CS"

 * 03:59
 * [User:Touretzky] edited [David S. Touretzky] again.

 * 15:38
 * After a few other contributors reverted my edits on [Keith Henson], I restored correctly attributed content.

 * 17:00
 * Having still not answered my comment regarding disputed content, MarkSweep reverted my edit to [Keith Henson] and left the edit summary "rv: take it to talk".

 * 18:43
 * MarkSweep's fifth edit to [David S. Touretzky] was simple wikification and a "valid" removal of link to amazon.

31 July 2005

 * 21:27
 * MarkSweep makes a contribution to [David S. Touretzky] yet he also deletes my contribution.

1 August 2005

 * 14:37
 * MarkSweep reverts [David S. Touretzky] based on his POV about my contribution, yet his revert removes more than he mentions.

 * 15:08
 * MarkSweep rewords a section of [David S. Touretzky], his most significant edit as of August 1, 2005.

Evidence presented by MarkSweep
Organized by topic.

The specific complaint
AI has used his own interpretation of a disputed guideline in order to remove other users' comments on article talk pages. Moreover, he has done so repeatedly, persistently, and against community consensus. In a nutshell, you know something is wrong if there's a revert war on a talk page.

Status of the guideline on removing personal attacks
AI claims that his actions are supported by Remove personal attacks. This is an inofficial guideline which was heavily debated and whose status as a piece of policy is disputed. While guidelines should generally be followed, invoking a controversial guideline over the objections of several editors is simply wrong.

However, all of this is more or less irrelevant. What's at stake is not whether Remove personal attacks is official policy or not. Rather, AI's invocation of this guideline is spurious, as it only applies to personal attacks that are recognized as such by the community. In this case, AI has substituted his own, misguided definition of "personal attacks".

Here are some relevant excerpts from Remove personal attacks:

 * "This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. However, it does enjoy sufficient support from the community for the arbitration committee to suggest that people apply it in particular circumstances. It is left up to individuals to decide whether to apply it themselves, and if they do they may find themselves having to explain their reasoning to the affected parties, which is probably no bad thing."
 * Comment: AI's explanations were rejected by several editors and supported by nobody besides him, yet he continued undeterred.
 * "Whenever you refactor, do not destroy the context of a conversation -- all statements in the discussion should still make sense after the refactoring."
 * Comment: AI's disruptive attempts to delete comments led to confusion, as shown in User:Modemac's summary of a recent edit: "Cancel that restore - AI has removed coments from this page so many times, I've had trouble [keeping] track of what is supposed to be here".
 * "Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content."
 * Comment: AI has removed comments (see below) which were relevant to a substantive debate and which contained nothing that could be considered "personally offensive" by reasonable standards.

AI's definition of "personal attacks/comments"
AI's views on the definition of personal attacks/comments can be seen from the following statements he has made:

 * I have a suggestion [...] [Users] should only reprimand an offending user in that user's talk page. To reprimand him in an article talk page is contrary to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which is stated at the beginning of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The personal attack in the article talk page can be removed.

 * My understanding [...] is that personal comments on article talk pages qualify as personal attacks. Personal comments should be entered in a user's talk page. Any personal comments/attacks on article talk pages [...] can be removed by anyone.

 * For the sake of civility any suggestions which are not about content should be sent to personal talk pages instead of in article talk pages. Personal suggestions to a user in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack.

 * Personal comments to another contributor in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack.

 * Instructing [editors not to make personal attacks] in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack according to Wikipolicy. You should instruct them on their personal talk page.

 * No language should be used anywhere which may be perceived by the user or others as offensive.
 * Comment: The problem with this is that a user with ultra-thin skin may view things as offensive which the larger community would find unobjectionable.

 * It is not an idiosyncraic view, his usage of this word is a personal attack. Any personal comments directed at me with adjectives that I disagree with are personal attacks in my opinion.

 * removed personal attack, restoration will count as another personal attack

 * Kelly Martin, [your] speculation about User:AI is uncalled for and is taken as a personal attack […].

AI attempts to enforce his take on the civility policy
The following activities take place on Talk:David S. Touretzky. AI has effectively removed a particular portion of another user's comments at least nine times. He was reverted and/or asked to stop several times by at least five different editors (Joolz, Modemac, MarkSweep, NicholsTurnbull, Talrias), with nobody voicing any support for his actions. While that was going on, a Request for Mediation was filed, AI was blocked for a 3RR violation, and this Request for Arbitration was filed, while AI continued his actions despite two pending requests, even coming close to violating 3RR a second time. It was only after all this that AI finally engaged in conversation on the talk page about his removal of comments. (All times are UTC-4.)

 * 2005-07-18 15:52, User:NicholasTurnbull posts a long comment and concludes with: Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?
 * 2005-07-18 21:19, AI responds (without actually responding to any of the issues that Nicholas raised): Addressing my personal activity is irrelevant to this article and with my recent education in Wikipedia policy, my understanding is that it is also a violation of policy.
 * 2005-07-19 07:23, AI removes the portion of NicholasTurnbull's comment quoted above as well as his own replies, with an edit summary of -personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." No personal attacks
 * A spate of further edits follows, in which AI removes personal attacks he originated together with replies and comments by other editors. User:Modemac restores several comments, and AI begins reverting the restoration. See the history for futher details.
 * 2005-07-19 13:19, NicholasTurnbull restores the portions of his own comment that AI had previously deleted.
 * 2005-07-20 04:40, AI removes a portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the second time.
 * 2005-07-20 13:57, Nicholas Turnbull restores his comments for the second time, noting in the edit summary that "there are no personal attacks" in his statements.
 * 2005-07-20 16:42, AI reverts with edit summary "revert. removed personal comments", thus removing NicholasTurnbull's comments for the third time.
 * Comment: AI is splitting hairs over "personal attacks" vs. "personal comments". The real issue is civility (personal attacks/comments are just on example of incivil behavior), and there was nothing incivil about NicholasTurnbull's statements.
 * 2005-07-20 16:55, User:Joolz reverts^2 AI's revert, summarizing: "revert - please don't remove other people's comments, that was not a personal attack".
 * 2005-07-20 17:11, AI reverts^3 Joolz's revert^2 of AI's prior revert. AI effectively removes portions of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the fourth time. AI summarizes his edit: "revert personal comments have no place in article talk pages. If you have something personal to say to me, send it to me talk page".
 * At this point, one thread of the conversation branches off and runs concurrently on User talk:AI:
 * 2005-07-20 17:22, Joolz has something to say to AI, and posts on AI's talk page: Please stop removing "personal comments" from discussion pages. The people who have written those comments do not appreciate it, nor does it create a hospitable environment to discuss the article in. [...] Remove personal attacks (which is a disputed guideline, not a policy) clearly states "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed".
 * 2005-07-20 17:58, AI removes Joolz's comment from his talk page and replies on Joolz's talk page: Will you please refrain from any further revert-restoring of personal accusations? His personal accusations are not simply "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule..." as you claim. I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. We have spoken...
 * 2005-07-20 18:04, Joolz replies, reminding AI that removing comments is controversial and may even be considered vandalism.
 * 2005-07-20 18:16, AI replies: I disagree with your opinion. I did not remove comments relevant to the article's dispute over "grounless attacks" and "spurious references" If you are not a Wikipedia mediator I will have no further discussion with you about this.
 * 2005-07-20 17:47 User:MarkSweep reverts^4 AI's revert^3, reminding him: "no substantial edits to other people's comments, please".
 * At this point, another concurrent thread branches off, taking place on AI's and MarkSweep's talk pages:
 * 2005-07-20 18:12, AI contacts MarkSweep, saying: "If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks."
 * 2005-07-20 18:21, MarkSweep replies, explaining that it is not up to AI to define civility as it suits him.
 * 2005-07-20 19:21, MarkSweep contacts AI, asking him again to not remove legitimate comments against consensus.
 * 2005-07-20 19:28, AI's entire response is: "As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored, take your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks."
 * Comment: That was the final straw.
 * 2005-07-20 18:23, AI removes a portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the fifth time.
 * 2005-07-20 18:23, MarkSweep restores NicholasTurnbull's comments.
 * 2005-07-20 18:24, AI removes the same portion of NicholasTurnbull's comments for the sixth time.
 * The next few things take place elsewhere:
 * 2005-07-20 19:02, User:Jdforrester notifies AI that he is in breach of 3RR. His assumption "I imagine that you weren't aware of this rule until now" turns out to be wrong, as AI is clearly aware of 3RR.
 * 2005-07-20 19:46, User:Snowspinner blocks AI for 24 hours for the 3RR violation reported by James F.
 * 2005-07-20 19:57, this RfAr is filed.
 * 2005-07-20 22:01, User:Talrias contacts AI, asking him to "please consider this a friendly request to leave comments which other's make, and reply to them, rather than removing them because you feel they are personal attacks."

One and a half days later:

 * 2005-07-22 12:41, Modemac restores NicholasTurnbull's comments.
 * 2005-07-22 17:03, AI reverts, thus removing NicholasTurnbull's comments for the seventh time, claiming "I have already provided an explanation in my earlier reverts".
 * Comment: This conveniently ignores the fact that his earlier "explanation" was not accepted by the community, and that AI was asked to stop by NicholasTurnbull, Modemac, Joolz, and MarkSweep.
 * 2005-07-22 17:14, MarkSweep reverts.
 * 2005-07-22 18:08, AI reverts (eighth removal), commenting: "please explain your revert, I have already explained mine".
 * 2005-07-22 18:15, MarkSweep reverts, without feeling like he owes AI another explanation for something that was explained to him at least four times already.
 * 2005-07-22 18:18, AI reverts again (ninth removal).
 * 2005-07-22 18:42, Joolz reverts, commenting: "please don't remove other people's comments, however much you dislike them."
 * At this point, if AI were to revert again, he would be in violation of 3RR. Wisely, he opts for discussion instead of keeping on reverting. Debate ensues.

The general problem
The specific complaint above is just one instance of what appears to be a general pattern in AI's activities and interactions with other editors. His tactics include:

 * Attempts to control the conversation:
 * Indicating that he will only engage in conversation with certain people.
 * Unless you are a mediator, I will have no further communication with you on this.
 * I will only provide information at the request of an arbitrator. Currently, the only arbitrator I will respond to is James F..
 * Messages from MarkSweep are not acceptable to me.
 * AI's response is "Are you Joolz?" when User:Calton replies to a question that AI had directed at User:Joolz on Talk:David S. Touretzky. The question clearly concerned a larger number of editors, as Joolz was only one of several who had reverted AI.
 * Indicating that conversations must take place in a certain manner and certain locations specified by him.
 * I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If the critic doesn't like my sources then that should be discussed without personal remarks or comments. His personal comments should have been sent to my talk page, not posted to an article talk page.
 * [T]ake your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks.
 * If you seek to police my actions more strictly, then I suggest you engage in discussion at WP:NPA and revise the document. Until then I will use the policy/guideline and specifically ignore any further comments you have about personal comments/attacks whether you address me here or my talk page.
 * Indicating that he is unwilling to continue certain conversations.
 * As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored [...].
 * Further messages from you about this will be ignored.
 * We have spoken...
 * Passive-aggressively stating vague preconditions to futher discussion.
 * "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" contains lies. I will not submit my statement until the lies are corrected.
 * My statement about lies is the only statement I will provide until the requestor changes his presentation.

 * Attempts to derail those who oppose him:
 * Aggressively enforcing policies and guidelines as interpreted by him (outlined above).
 * Personal accusations against others.
 * While AI has scaled back his attacks on others, he continues to make veiled threats or attacks. For example, saying things like "I'll refrain from making personal comments about you here in this talk page" is very close to saying "Not to make this personal", which is one of the more serious examples of uncivil behavior listed on Civility.
 * Baseless accusations of alleged and/or minor policy violations by others.
 * The accusations of incivility outlined above are without merit, made only for the purpose of removing comments he doesn't like.
 * His earlier listings on Wikiquette alerts also contain a number of over-blown or completely baseless accusations.
 * Threats, real or imagined.
 * any action taken by you opposing my action will be added to the arbitration.
 * Should I call in some commoners from the village pump to see what they think about Kelly and Mark's activities? :)
 * any much more of this and I will contact Jimbo Wales myself about Wikipedia's problems
 * Pre-emptive strikes against future opposition.
 * anyone disputing my action is simply out of their mind
 * removed personal attack, restoration will count as another personal attack
 * Demanding explanations, evidence, and/or citations of policy from others, while never being satisfied with the responses he gets:
 * In the future, I suggest that you please refer others to policy with citations instead of just offering opinions.
 * You need to educate yourself on Wikipedia policy.
 * Continued incivility, though not rising to the level of personal attacks.
 * "Thank you for your opinion." (pairs of single quotes in original)
 * I see nothing wrong with this statement other than Kelly's (who is Dr. Touretzky's "friend") and MarkSweep's apparent desire to "protect" Professor Touretzky reputation which I have not destroyed. David Touretzky destroyed his own reputation and now is using these dupes to protect himself from further damage.
 * Recreating content in user space that was rejected from the article space.
 * User:AI/Touretzky quotes is a list of alleged "quotes" by David S. Touretzky that AI intended to use in the article on Touretzky. That met with vocal opposition from several editors, because the "quotes" are apparently based on chat logs and because the only secondary source that uses them is heavily biased and fails to mention where the "quotes" come from. I cannot decide whether AI's creation of a Touretzky quotes pages in his user space is an attempt to discredit only Touretzky, or an attempt to create legal problems for Wikipedia (see Libel).

AI fails to respect the spirit of policies
What is deeply troubling is that AI views policies as tools that can be wielded to silence the opposition. For him, they are means to an end, rather than guidelines and suggestions that ensure the smooth operation of Wikipedia. A particularly telling quote is this:

 * Gabriel, please walk lightly. There are actions you can take when you run into opposition, keep reading policies and you'll see.

He has launched specific inquiries about policies that regulate the removal of comments. Once he found a policy that suited him, he applied it rigidly and aggressively according to his own idiosyncratic interpretation, as demonstrated above. His persistence in editing other editors' comments is in stark contrast with his prior objections against his own comments being edited by others:

 * Don't touch my posts even to correct a mispelling.

On the same talk page, he also invokes the policy against original research to silence another editor:

 * Your opinion [expressed on the talk page] is original research and not welcome in Wikipedia.

If all else fails, he will fall back to accusing those he sees as his opponents of "biting newcomers":

 * If you are going to bite other newcomers, don't bother trying to hide your [teeth].

The picture that emerges is that of someone who will cling to any remotely relevant piece of policy and terminology that can help him with his own agenda.

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (blocked proxy)
 * (blocked proxy)
 * (blocked proxy)

Those are IP addresses, not sock puppet. (Further demonstration of inherent incompetence of the doomed Wikipedia) --AI 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DreamGuy
I am an outsider to the complaints discussed above, but now that I see this arbitration is in process (I had not heard of it earlier) I thought I would add some evidence in other areas of User:AI breaking policy.

A large number of the alleged evidence presented against me in a recent RfC were placed there by AI, and it's quite clear that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work at all from the things he was complaining about. If you see accusations 12-15 you'll see he is accusing me of being a horrible editor when all I was doing was calmly and patiently editing to makes things follow the NPOV policy. Accusation 18 is an outright misrepresentation (I won't call it an outright fabrication, as he could have been confused, but then why not rescind it once his error was pointed out?), as he links to an edit in history showing an editor removing his own vote on a VfD and then tries to claim that it was me removing "an opposing users vote in a VfD" -- not only was the vote NOT an opposing vote, but I did not remove it, and it's obvious once you click the link in question. Further the talk page of this RfC is littered with comments of his showing completely uncivil behavior towards myself and the 12 editors who signed outside views and would not support his side (and note that other than the two people he brought in at the start -- another of whom who had a major RfC with 20 people against him -- no editors endorsed his claims). Following the links provided in his claims (accusations 12-15) shows him making highly POV edits to articles, and also reverting Missing Sun myth to the version he wanted (making a fork file in the process, as the page had previously been moved) while a VfD was in progress showing clear consensus that the article could not be that way (see here ). Based upon his other edits it is also highly likely he did not have an actual opinion on that article but was simply trying to undo edits I had made solely because it was me who made them.

 * Dreamguy, thank you for your contribution. Please appeal to Jimbo Wales for your payment as a consultant. --AI 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Antaeus Feldspar
AI's behavior shows that he wants to only obey those principles of Wikipedia, and only those portions of those principles, that are convenient to him at the moment. There may be nothing that shows this better than his inconsistent policy on personal attacks. MarkSweep has already done an excellent job showing how AI made personal attacks upon other editors, then purported to discover the official policy of "No personal attacks" rule and the disputed guideline of "Remove personal attacks at the same time, and applied the latter to erase his own personal attacks and the responses from other editors.

AI's prejudicial interpretation of this latter disputed guideline as his right to "rewind" a conversation and erase any portion of it that fit under his stretchy definition of a "personal attack" is already quite clear (for instance, defining a civilly-worded request that he abide by Wikipedia policy as a "personal attack".) What makes it absolutely clear that AI is doing so in bad faith is his return to making personal attacks -- this time in the text of the article itself.

AI has done this twice under at Religious Freedom Watch:,. It could be argued by a devil's advocate that he actually believed an appropriate way to deal with material he did not want to accept into the article was to isolate it under the sub-header "Claims by User:Antaeus Feldspar" and return the rest of the article to the state he preferred -- essentially creating a content fork within a single article. However, it cannot be claimed that there was good faith behind adding my username to the "See Also" section of Tin-foil hat, as AI did here:  This is the most damning proof that AI does not intend to adhere to any Wikipedia policy for longer than it is convenient, because he previously made the implication on the talk page of the article that I wore a tin-foil hat:, ,  then later defined it as a personal attack and repeatedly removed it , , , , , -- despite the person targeted by these personal attacks (myself) very clearly spelling out that the intent of the "Remove personal attacks" guideline was civility and that if he is edit warring over his right to remove them, it shows he was not removing them for the correct reason: , , , . What he has done with this latest action is to make what by his own repeated insistence is a personal attack upon me, and this time making it in the article text, so that any Wikipedia reader will see his slam on me.

(I'd like to point out as well that AI has shown a particular hatred for the Tin-foil hat article, tagging it three times for speedy deletion:, , .  The third time happened almost a month after the first two, after it had already been well-explained to AI that there are only certain reasons why an article would be speedily-deleteable, and the reasons he cited ("nonsense", , , ; a "hoax" ) were inapplicable or explicitly not a reason to speedy-delete. Accordingly, his third attempt to bypass VfD/AfD to get the article deleted did not cite any reason the article should be deleted except the cryptic question "Is this a serious encyclopedia or not?" -- and did not disclose in the edit summary that he had marked the article for deletion.  He also removed Tin-foil hat from the "See Also" section of Mind control, with a personally-directed edit summary and with no explanation of why a connection to such a clearly relevant article should be removed. )

This section will be added to later, to show the falseness of AI's claim that he has never "explicitly refused [any] communication from ordinary editors." What he has done is define anyone disagreeing with him as 'not an ordinary editor' and refused any communication from them -- ordinary or not -- that he finds inconvenient. This will be documented by showing how AI tried to change the categorization of articles he disagreed with based on a policy he was quoting -- but ignored the second half of a sentence in order to categorize things the way he wanted them, not openly refused an explanation of where he was misapplying the policy with "stop wasting your time and mine trying to explain things", but threatened to add any further attempts to explain to RfC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by HKT
I've had to deal with AI's belligerence (on the Iran-related article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), which, as the latest series of disruptions to the article, ultimately led to page-protection. There is a section in the Ahmadinejad article which details allegations against Ahmadinejad that were widely discussed in most leading mainstream international media sources. This was accompanied by a flurry of statements from the Iranian and US governments about those allegations. AI tagged the allegations section with sectfact templates and the following remarks: "'Why perpetuate a controversy based on dubious claims and conflicting accounts? Wikipedia should not be used to promote controversies, that is what tabloids are for. Is Wikipedia a tabloid?'" This bizzare understanding of WP:NOR and Wikipedia's notability standards was nevertheless not an explanation for tagging sections as factually inaccurate. In fact, no such explanation was provided. The section in question was the product of collaboration between editors of various and opposing POVs, and was ostensibly quite balanced and factual (though not immune to persistent vandalism). That section emphasized that the allegations were claims that had not been verified. Similarly, that section gave equal focus to denials of the allegations against Ahmadinejad. AI's tagging was reverted on the above grounds. Nevertheless, AI continued to either tag the section as factually inaccurate or delete several paragraphs (entire subsections) outright. He did this under his user name and IP proxies, variably. When I explained to him that the Ahmadinejad allegations have been the subject of a US government investigation and widespread media scrutiny, AI responded as follows: "'Has the US government launched an investigation into these claims about Ahmadinejad and his involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis? To hell with mainstream media. Anyone with enough money can become 'mainstream media.' Anyway, I would be happy to nominate you as a sysop of any future Wikitabloid.'" AI then followed by initiating a frightening new section on the article's talk page, entitled: "Will the wikipedia contributors be willing to take responsibility for their involvement in perpetuation of totally disputed controversy?" His comment in that section consisted only of an image of the nuclear detonation at Nagasaki.

I have not had other encounters with this editor, but the apparent trend of intimidation and disruption is troubling. HKT talk 06:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

HKT's quotes of me are correct and I do not take back my words. --AI 00:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)