Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for continuance

1) Freedom skies says he has to be away for two days[1] which probably isn't an issue unless closing is imminent.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Conditional Propose: Only if closing is not imminent. JFD 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Freedom skies has made 4 edits[2][3][4][5] little more than 24 hours after[6] he said he had "to be away for two more days". JFD 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At 22:34, 28 March 2007 Freedom skies wrote, "I would like to state that I am awaiting the final outcome of this arbitration process and would not submit any evidence in my defence from this point on, or continue with the defences that I have been trying to put in through my break. Kindly examine the evidence and reach a conclusion taking into account the intentions of all involved." JFD 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support.Bakaman 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Wiki Raja 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Clerk note: Given that no arbitrator has posted a proposed decision yet, and Freedom skies' most recent comment above, this should probably not be an issue. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.<--D-Boy 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --Bhadani (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be a clearer example of the mindless meatpuppetry of Freedom skies and his friends than Dangerous-Boy and Bhadani showing up and supporting this motion for continuation after Freedom skies would have already returned? JFD 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser

Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal is fixated on Bodhidharma.[7][8]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal[9][10][11] and Moerou toukon[12] have deleted references to the legendary nature of Buddhist hagiography.
Like Freedom skies,[13][14][15] Phillip Rosenthal has inserted a particular portrait of Bodhidharma into several articles.[16][17][18]
Like Freedom skies, when Phillip Rosenthal cites Zen Buddhism: A History, he identifies its translators, James W. Heisig and Paul Knitter, as co-authors.[19][20]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal has edit-warred with Tigeroo over the role of Islam in the decline of Buddhism in India.[21][22][23][24]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal has deleted references to the persecution of Buddhists by Pusyamitra Sunga.[25]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal inflates the role of India[26][27][28] and is particularly prejudiced against Pakistan[29][30][31][32] and[33][34] China[35][36][37][38] to the point that he deletes references to China even when India is not involved.[39][40]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal is such a poor speller[41] ("greuls," "Juedo Christian," "Franðcoise") that he reverts the spelling corrections of others.[42]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal is fond of citing Google Books.[43]
Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal promotes a theory of yogic origins for Buddhism.[44][45][46]
In this diff, Phillip Rosenthal reverts to Freedom skies' version.
Shanmugam34's sole edit is the creation of Yoga and Buddhism[47] using material added by Freedom skies[48] and Phillip Rosenthal.[49]
Requested: JFD 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser

Steelhead shared the same POV as Kennethtennyson during that period and has appeared on discussions regarding Indian nationalism and Indian martial arts. Including an attempt to have me trapped in 3RR. He has had the same POV and the same disruptive conduct as Kennethtennyson.

This account stopped editing on 13:07, 26 November 2006 and Knverma appeared on 21:39, 7 January 2007 and his editing pattern seems to be the same of the earlier account i.e. appearing in the issues highlighted in this discussion for disruptive support via addition of unsourced text and removal of sourced text. ([50], [51]). You'll also note that This and this are similar as well.

Cherlin seems to have been a sockpuppet created for editing on controversial issues by Kennethtennyson. The attaching of Tag on Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts during this arbitration process and he mocks the Zen tradition by calling everything legendary here, here and here.

I have many other IPs to mention but I'll mention only accounts here.

It would have been of immense help to have known what the accounts mentioned by JFD have done that is relevant to this discussion. Most of the accounts that JFD has bought in have not undid JFD's work on Zen, Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts.

In response to JFD's assertion of "to the point that he deletes references to China even when India is not involved" you'll note that this assertion is biased and incorrect. The diff produced by JFD involves an assertion being made using this shoddy citation and later on Moerou Toukon replaces the same assertion using encyclopedia brittanica, In the other case (pasta) academic citations have been used to clean and promote the article to GA class. The article was in this state and has been promoted to GA class thanks to the efforts of one account. How is this relevant to the articles prevailing in this arbitration again?

The Phillip Rosenthal account has contributed towards promoting Yoga and Pasta to GA level.
Note that this account has not edited on Bodhidharma (except one removal of speculative image,one fixing reference tag and one spelling correction as compared to JFD's removal of intro based on a citation from the Shankaracharya of Kanchi and Kennethtennyson's removal of text with abusive summary. The decision of mutual abstainence was agreed upon during the Bodhidharma discussion and both Kennethtennyson and JFD have violated it, unlike the Phillip Rosenthal account who has just been cleaning in that article. These are actions of someone who cares enough to upkeep and maintain the article as opposed to pushing a vitriolic POV with abusive intent on the topics mentioned in this arbitration process. )

The assertion of Phillip Rosenthal has edit-warred with Tigeroo over the role of Islam in the decline of Buddhism in India is incorrect and biased. Phillip Rosenthal started editing on 20:57, 15 February 2007 and this section was in this state on that date. No addition of information or changes to the content can be noted by Phillip rosenthal regarding that section (verify). The article deals with the subject of the History of Buddhism in India and was edited to the extent of being nominated for GA class by Phillip Rosenthal.
Tigeroo had left Wikipedia and walked out on the formal medcab case of the decline of buddhism in India; he appeared out of nowhere to blank sourced text (by Daniel Pipes and the Mahabodhi Society) and blanked the second paragraph of this version. All of Tigeroo's sorced material was kept and sourced material was reinstated here using the edit summary of excellent new references, the Richard Hooker reference looks a bit dubious though but retainable as it's from wsu.edu; reinstating some blanked material. Tigeroo blanked sourced material again and replied rv, moved to talk. That was when talks became unavoidable and new material was provided for the same assertion. There has been no edit warring; only blanking of sourced text as is charecteristic of Tigeroo who chose to walk out of a medcab case but appeared out of nowhere to edit once he found this out. See for yourself the state in which this article was before the involvement of Phillip Rosenthal and see how close the article currently is to gaining GA class in this version. These are the actions of someone who would like to work tirelessly on improving Buddhism related articles.

JFD's assertion of Like Freedom skies, Phillip Rosenthal has deleted references to the persecution of Buddhists by Pusyamitra Sunga is also biased and incorrect. If the involved will take a look here then they'll realize that there was a citation needed tag in front of the unsourced assertion. This text had been unsourced since at least 19:27, 14 August 2005 and sources were not provided even till 9:15, 2 February 2007. Does the removal of text such as this result in punitive action?

If this account were to edit on the contentious issues mentioned here then it would have been liable for a checkuser, like the Knverma account has done on Zen. Editing out of the tpics of controversy falls under fair use; the accounts were not used for editing on Zen even when disruptive removal of sourced text by the opposition. The account has yet to make any contributions towards Zen, Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts articles; It has not even ventured to put a tag on the very violently written Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article but has edited in peace and in isolation with the contentious issues being discussed in this arbitration process.

The accounts that I have mentioned (Cherlin, Steelhead, Knverma) have edited on Zen, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts etc. and are hence liable for a checkuser under the discussion prevailing in this arbitration process.

Requested Checkuser and I also request to reject JFD's request of a checkuser as it's not of any relevance to the articles mentioned in this process. Freedom skies| talk  09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Civility

1) In their dealings with other users, Wikipedia users are expected to assume good faith, to avoid personal attacks, to observe Wikiquette, civility and writers' rules of engagement, and to otherwise behave reasonably and calmly.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have been admittedly guilty of violating this core WP policy and that has damaged my credibility and standng to a great extent. I will follow this core policy in the future.Freedom skies| talk  20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose I don't understand why people are targetting Freedom skies. He tried to explain matter in polite manner even when people targetted him. I don't understand why he is being targetted now when he is not active and when he repeatedly pleaded time to focus on real life. He came back to wikipedia only to clear allegations against him. --Indianstar 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by WP:NOT.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Certain articles, like Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and Yi Jin Jing are very oddly written. Proper attention must be paid to their tone and content, as has been the case with other articles.Freedom skies| talk  20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But I'm not convinced this will be useful in persuading anyone to stop their edit-warring: both sides of a politicized issue will feel that the other side's views are propaganda and use this to justify their own continued edits. —David Eppstein 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

3) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Editing, disruptive in natue should not be allowed. My intentions on a repeat of Indian mathematics are very clear. 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Freedom skies| talk  20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Puppetry

4) Accounts and anonymous IPs which engage in the same behavior as another user in the same context shall be subject to the same remedies as that user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence. Without evidence and checkuser results why do you level this allegation?--Indianstar 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Also, this principle should apply to meatpuppets as well. Freedom skies| talk  20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I said in my original statement, I think several editors (who I believe to be different people from Freedom skies) have acted similarly to Freedom skies and am not convinced that singling him out alone for punitive measures will be sufficient to stop the edit wars he's been involved in. —David Eppstein 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate your charges with evidence.--Indianstar 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose People level allegations without providing evidences which clearly shows they want to target a person who is in wikibreak.--Indianstar 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

5) Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Peer-reviewed sources (such as academic/scholarly journals) are more reliable than sources with editorial oversight (such as print journalism and some broadcast media), which in turn are more reliable than questionable or self-published sources (such as web pages). See WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide diffs and other evidences.--Indianstar 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Reliable literature and is a must for WP articles. The articles should reflect reliable, mainstream point of views. The following sources should widely be used as per Wikipedia:Attribution :-
  • Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
  • Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
  • Books written by widely published authors;
  • Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets. Freedom skies| talk  20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This, I think, is at the heart of the problem edits. —David Eppstein 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Freedom skies' citations are suspect

1) Freedom skies cites sources which do not support his claims as well as sources which are highly suspect.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: CiteCop 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: JFD 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Sources such as these fulfill the WP:RS criteria. Freedom skies| talk  20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have verified many of Freedom's citations to reliable sources (and checked the material on google books). JFD even agreed to the validity of such citations, and the sudden change in attitude seems like a little ploy to turn a nasty lie into some sort of half truth.Bakaman 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. —David Eppstein 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Freedoms skies citations are from valid web sites. Wiki Raja 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Support in part: I would support the statement that he cites unreliable sources. The evidence that he falsifies citations is suggestive but the wording implies intent to falsify which I am not entirely convinced of. I find Bakasuprman's opposition to this finding hypocritical in view of this edit war in which Baka is himself repeatedly introducing unreliable sources (an unpublished essay and a student newspaper piece) in criticizing a living person. —David Eppstein 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the criticism is from a noted scholar on the issue. Attacking me for my comments isnt going to get arbcom to cozy up to your point of view.Bakaman 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended as an attack, but to point out that I consider you as in an equivalence class with Freedom skies, and therefore an unreliable source on the reliability of his sources. As for the "noted scholar", I have no knowledge of that specific issue, but several of the editors of that article appear to disagree. And again, this non-neutral language (specifically "cozy up") does not seem very civil to me. —David Eppstein 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the editors are in an equivalence class of POV and style of polemic. Your views, or Dbachmann's views for that matter are irrelevant, when I myself have never had problems with JFD. Also stringing together an issue of politics/religion with another editors issues with history is hardly indicative of any sting of unreliability. Your Ad hominem circumstantial argument does not hold, and bringing up WP:CIVIL is useless because as User:Blnguyen, an arbitrator has noted, civility is disregarded in India related matters. One must be a thick-skinned editor to function in this area. Of course, training from BJP underground headquarters helps.Bakaman 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLN, would you please indicate to your adoring public if you do, in fact, think that WP guidelines on civility cease magically in India-related articles? Hornplease 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLN has indicated on his talkpage that he was making a statement about the limits of policing. Note that, as Eppstein points out, you are generally considered in an equivalence class with Freedom Skies. Hornplease 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove there is a "generally considered", otherwise you are merely promoting your own incorrect theories as you did before (Hkelkar 2006). Likewise you are in a general class with Ikonoblast, TerryJHo, and BhaiSaab.Bakaman 22:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There's a fundamental difference between us. You're tendentious and disruptive, with a stated POV, and I'm not, and haven't one. See BL's page for 'generally considered' and now please stop cluttering up the page with your attempts at argument. Hornplease 09:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You are unquotable on policy and therefore your POV on my edits is bound to be incorrect. Blnguyen had blocked me in the past, when your friends BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) and Ikonoblast (talk · contribs) were around, and on my first month on wiki. Blnguyen would hardly display a visceral hatred for me now, and I'm guessins he correctly figured out I learned something from being around trolls like BhaiSaab, TerryJHo, His excellency, nadirali, ikonoblast, you, the whole equivalence class. Rather than pointlessly attack me, you may want to do something constructive rather than attack me wherever I go, as is your wont. It seems after Hkelkar, that is your sole purpose on wiki.Bakaman 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what that rant was about. I note that BL's comment was from a few days ago, and that you haven't been able to substantiate why I'm unquotable on policy. (As if I would try and quote it at you. Like most recidivists, you know the law by now.) And if you're comparing me to a banned troll, I'd like substantiation based on block logs, or an RfC, or anything. Failing which, just don't keep on trying to flog a dead horse, as it makes you look ever sillier. (SPA indeed! Sheesh.) Hornplease 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new more neutral wording "Freedom skies cites sources which do not support his claims as well as sources which are highly suspect" better and can unequivocally support it. —David Eppstein 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
If appropriate, adding "sometimes" or "frequently" or another qualifier before "cites" might avoid an implication that every source is problematic (unless that really is the contention). Newyorkbrad 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per my only run-in with the chap, a few months ago. This misuse of WP in the exaltation of fringe scholarship to the level of the mainstream is the single greatest threat facing this encyclopaedia and must be stopped. Hornplease 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies has a history of violating WP:NPOV/WP:SOAP

2) Freedom skies has a history of POV-pushing and soapboxing across a wide range of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The discussions on talk:Bodhidharma (paticularly this) should reveal a few facts.Freedom skies| talk  20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Freedom skies has been battling POV from other particular users. Wiki Raja 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose:Joe Carrara 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]

Freedom skies has a history of incivility and personal attacks

3) Freedom skies has a history of incivility toward and personal attacks against his fellow editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide evidences
Comment by others:
Oppose: Fictional.Bakaman 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Wiki Raja 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Oppose:Joe Carrara 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]
Oppose: Incivility and personal attacks should never be condoned and encouraged. However, unless sufficient evidences are brought forth, no one has right to charge and attack another fellow editor. --Bhadani (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No evidences were provided by people who proposed and supported the resolution.--Indianstar 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies has a history of WP:EW across a wide range of articles

4) Freedom skies has a history of edit-warring across a wide range of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Most of the evidence produced here and here is incorrect. Freedom skies| talk  20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose:Wiki Raja 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Oppose:Joe Carrara 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]
Oppose: I am amazed that WP:EW veiled as an administrative rollbacks and simple WP:EW by a simple user at the mercy of administrators should have two different treatments whereas for all practical purpose, they are the same if the administrator/s concerned are interested in the contents. --Bhadani (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD has engaged in disruptive edit warring

5) JFD and Kennethtennyson have been operating coherently as demonstrated here.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Freedom skies| talk  20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check my block log; then check Freedom skies'. JFD 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Strongly Support Wiki Raja 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Support Joe Carrara 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]

JFD violates WP:Soap

6) JFD has been the principle element behind the crafting of articles such as Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and Yi Jin Jing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Freedom skies| talk  20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Strongly Support: Wiki Raja 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Support:Joe Carrara 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]
Support. I am actively against all the articles which are made to have a POV. Creation of an article named Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection is very humorous!--Scheibenzahl 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD violates shows a Han Chinese bias

7) In this post JFD attempts to have Shaolin Kung Fu reverted from this version to this biased version.

In addition, JFD has attempted to have Bodhidharma reverted from the excellent present state to this biased state.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Freedom skies| talk  12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Endorse - Quite obvious.Bakaman 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Indeed obvious.--Scheibenzahl 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD's uses suspect sources to push fringe thoeries

8) JFD's article Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection is based on only a few sources. One of his sources Stanley Hennig has become a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community and the other source Tang Hao has been arrested on grounds on being a communist. Having conflicting theories produced by them is criminally unethical.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Freedom skies| talk  12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage Arbitrators to click on both links provided by Freedom skies and to read the relevant paragraphs from beginning to end. They are brief, so it will take very little time. Thank you. JFD 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the first link contains what is probably the most comprehensive biography of Tang Hao in the English language (pp. 38–60). If time is limited, just read pp. 38–39. JFD 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first link also contains a brief profile of Matsuda Ryuchi, one of what Freedom skies calls[52] my "incorrect," "demonstrably conflicting" sources. It's only 2 pages (pp. 61–62), so it won't take long to read. JFD 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

JFD's manipulates evidence to produce strong and biased content

9) JFD's point of view, as described in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection, has not been endorsed by mainstream, reliable sources such as these.

JFD deliberately manipulates conflicting theories and witholds information, such as Jeffrey Broughton noting that Yáng Xuànzhī may have been referring to a different monk named Bodhidharma, as he mentions a Bodhidharma twice. in this section.

His claims of Bodhidharma being labelled as entirely fictional ("Paul Pelliot and Heinrich Dumoulin go further and argue that he was an entirely fictional character."his version) are disputed by sources which cite Dumoulin insists: " that he existed and was a native of India can be regarded as definitely established. ".

JFD's unspecific, unverifiable citations (such as this one ) are improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Freedom skies| talk  11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "entirely fictional" was 202.20.5.206's choice of words,[53] not mine. Ironically, my version is probably closer to Freedom skies' druthers than the one he cites, which emerged after discussion with other editors. As for the charge of withholding information, I have produced the relevant passage by Broughton here so that Arbitrators may judge the veracity and seriousness of this allegation for themselves. JFD 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Freedom skies is a disruptive and tendentious editor

10) Freedom skies

  • edits articles in pursuit of his POV despite opposition from other editors[54]
  • cites unencyclopedic sources[55] and misrepresents reliable sources that do not explicitly support his interpretation or the inferences he draws[56][57]
  • drives away productive contributors by being uncivil and making personal attacks[58]
  • has been blocked more than once for 3RR[59]
  • characterizes editors who disagree with him as vandals[60][61][62][63]
  • demands that others justify their edits[64][65][66]
  • has deleted the cited additions of others[67]
Freedom skies is a textbook example of a disruptive and tendentious editor.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: CiteCop 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: JFD 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is textbook misrepresentation; the "productive contributors" claimed that they don't research thoroughly while I introduced most of the refs and content in that article, I did not have the luxury of a dedicated meatpuppet. for 3RR, and the content in Batuo stayed the moment JFD produced his sources; before bringing exact quotes JFD was just edit warring there without evidence.Freedom skies| talk  22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Batuo diff above shows Freedom skies changing the article to suit his POV by removing an academically sourced quotation—which was never restored—and a disambiguation tag. JFD 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More misrepresentation. On 21:04, 28 September 2006 the formal wikipedia Buddhabhadra disambiguation page was created, effectively rendering the disambiguation tag on the top of the article useless. I edited on 21:54, 22 October 2006 to remove that useless disambiguation tag and replaced it with the image of the monastary founded by Buddhabhadra. If the arbitrators will click on the diff provided by JFD here then they'll realize that the "perfectly good" disambiguation tag did not even have wikilinks, and the article for the other Indian monk in China (Buddhabhadra (translator)) has not even been created yet.
  • This entire arbcom case is built on "evidence" such as this; the process is mocked by showing my protection of a academic source as "has deleted the cited additions of others." This is not the first time and every single edit I make is being shown like this; this one of the reasons why I have refrained from further comments or addition of evidence and have limited myself to awaiting judgement. This post was an exception as for some reason all my involvements are being shown as unrelenting and violent. Regards, Freedom skies| talk  19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose: Wiki Raja 00:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
OpposeBakaman 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The tendentious editor guideline is there for a reason. Hornplease 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: During the course of an article's emergence as a matured article, it passes through the hands of many editors and many edits - this can not be called disruptive and tendentious. At best, it may be a sort of over-activity. We are a vibrant, resilient, and mature community, and simple aberrations should not drive us to be crazy. --Bhadani (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is a clear problem of WP:OWN with certain editors. Couple it with a passionate editor of opposite POV, and you have got this case.--Scheibenzahl 12:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies drives away productive contributors

11) MichaelMaggs: I first encountered Freedom Skies in November last year, in connection with edits to the Bodhidharma and Zen articles. He was using citations profusely but, I thought, in a wholly improper way. I wasn't sure at that time whether he simply lacked an understanding of scholarly citation methods, and I assumed good faith and tried to explain quite carefully what I thought was wrong, unfortunately without complete success. While he and I eventually parted on good terms, I ultimately felt that trying to improve those two articles was simply going to take too much time and effort, and I backed off. As a result, I have edited here much less than I would otherwise have done.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Freedom skies has used sockpuppets to engage in POV-pushing and edit-warring

12) Checkuser has identified Phillip Rosenthal and Moerou toukon as likely sockpuppets of Freedom skies. While this Arbitration was taking place, Freedom skies used these sockpuppets to engage in POV-pushing and edit-warring.[68][69]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 07:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Subject ban

1) Freedom skies is banned indefinitely from articles relating to Buddhism or martial arts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: JFD 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice: CiteCop 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose - Tu quoque ? The same can be said for JFD, though I think neither has done anything along the lines of Unre4L (talk · contribs) or {{user

BhaiSaab}}.Bakaman 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:It would be a very biased decision to ban Freedom skies from articles relating to Buddhism or martial arts in particular. Freedom skies has been accused of Indian nationalism, why haven't we heard anything of JFD being accused of Chinese nationalism? Wiki Raja 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Oppose: per Baka, and Wiki Raja Joe Carrara 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [sock][reply]
Oppose - as per baka --D-Boy 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Evidences were not provided by people who brought this arbitration.--Indianstar 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Ridiculous.--Scheibenzahl 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history ban

2) Freedom skies is banned indefinitely from all articles he has disrupted in the past and may be banned from any article he disrupts in future.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed: CiteCop 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice: JFD 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose - Disrupted is quite a subjective word when there is no consensus or facts to back up such opprobrious allegations.Bakaman 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per baka --D-Boy 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose: Reading Freedom skies previous posts on talk pages, and edits on articles, I do not see him disruptive. Maybe a little enthusiastic about his roots, but that's about as far as it goes. Wiki Raja 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Strong Oppose: He has not been a disruption and is a good contributor.Joe Carrara 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this type of proposal is adopted (no comment on the merits), the standard probation or article probation wording is more clear. Newyorkbrad 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

3) The contributions of both the involved parties should be monitored. The involved parties should be placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a set of articles. The groups attempting violations of core policies, such as WP:NPOV, should be punished according to the scrutiny of a neutral, third party.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed : Freedom skies| talk  20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support:Wiki Raja 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
you are yourself an "involved party", Wiki Raja, per the rfar filing, and so am I, and pratically every passing editor who tried to set some bounds to Freedomskies' attitude of being "a little enthusiastic about his roots". WP isn't nursing school, and Wikipedians cannot be asked to "monitor" people who are quite obviously incapable of restraining their temper or use common sense in topics they feel strongly about. And obviously, any "neutral third party" will become "teh enemy" as soon as they speak out against somebody's cherished nationalist viewpoints. I know that I know, I am Swiss for crying out loud, and some editors try to set me up as the ultimate anti-Hindu incarnate. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar vein, I am American for crying out loud, and a certain editor tries to set me up as the ultimate BJP ultra-Hindu patriot. Bakaman 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a nursing school; Nursing schools don't mark articles and editors and scan encyclopedic content. It's where children play. It's entirely possible on Wikipedia and since both the have accused each other of being what Dab euphimistically refers to as "a little enthusiastic about their roots"; it may be the best way. The parties can vote for neutral editors and many editors, such as Djma12, are held in high regards by all involved. Freedom skies| talk  11:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good idea in principle, it's what you do before you go to arbitration. Arbitration means that this avenue has failed. Our good editors should write articles, not babysit our not-so good editors. (Bakaman: your physical location is not so relevant. I have yet to catch you doing an edit unrelated to India, and I've yet to catch you taking anything but a nationalist stance: your editing profile is that of a classic single-topic lobbyist. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me an ABCD doesnt prove your point. I am hardly confused about any identity, and should remind you this arbitration is not about me. Continued incivility and churlish behavior on your part only serve to indicate your indophobic prejudices emanating from your apparent strong disdain of those people living in shitholes. Also your patronization of the army of trolls brought to this arbcom in the past, BhaiSaab, TerryJ-Ho, Timothy Usher, User:Ikonoblast, etc, indicate that you subvert controversial South Asian articles by proxy, and then raise up a huge stink when the trolls one by one get banned, due to their stupidity and utter uselessness to the encyclopedia.Bakaman 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baka, it has been established that Dab is not indophobic. In any case, this is not about him. So please do not clutter up this page with your conspiracy theories. Accusing Dab of sending out Bhaisaab as his proxies is a particularly absurd, incivil, and disruptive allegation, even by your high standards. Will the ArbCom please note this? This editor's a menace. Hornplease 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And dab's use of an ethnic slurs, political slurs, and religious insults is perfectly acceptable.Bakaman 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you incapable of leaving a discussion even when it makes you look foolish? Since when is 'ABCD' an ethnic slur? It would come as quite a shock to the millions of South Asians and others who use the term daily. This has the same level of accuracy that characterises most of your 'contribution' to this project. Just leave well alone and get back to disrupting some other article, why don't you? Hornplease 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page American-Born_Confused_Desi seems to list it as such, paragraph 2 comes to mind. Nevertheless, he used it in a derogatory manner, and I regard it as a slur, which is what really matters. Since dbachmann is "involved" in the Martial arts dispute between freedo skies and JFD, the arbcom will examine his conduct as well.Bakaman 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a 'citation needed' thing on the second para of that article; it seems highly suspect. He used it as a characterisation - in my view, incorrect - of your motives that was considerably more charitable than any characterisation that you have placed on mine, or Dab's, or anyone who has crossed your path. That you regard it as a slur cannot be less interesting to me and to practically anyone else, since you regard 'everything' as a slur. More to the point, it is no justification, and is in no way equivalent, to accusing Dab of sending out trolls as his proxies. This kind of infantile argumentation is precisely why you are disruptive. Hornplease 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

4) This article is nothing but POV, OR, questionable citations and unreliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Propose: CiteCop 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: JFD 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything the article needs an expansion and addition of the Buddhist and Islamic influences. Excellent reference material has been available for some time but the content has not been added as the opposition on recording of any foreign influence was immense. The article may include the connection of China's arts with Japan as well; this should help in placating the oppositon to some extent. Freedom skies| talk  11:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose: There is no need for deletion of this article since there are lots of reliable sources in regards to Foreign inflence on Chinese martial arts. Even martial arts from Southern India have foreign influence from the African continent and Australia, while martial arts and combative styles from Northern India have foreign influences from Persia, or Iran. Wiki Raja 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (sock of blocked user Indrancroos)[reply]
Oppose - The framework of global martial arts is an example of large scale cultural diffusion . I have verified many of freedom skies citations, and JFD even found many suitable see Talk:Batuo#Stuff. The change of heart seems peculiar and totally unwarranted. And in the large scheme of things, Indian martial arts are rather obscure and not practiced while Chinese and other East Asian martial arts are omnipresent. If this is a battle in nationalistic muscle flexing, then we dont need to live in the past and wonder about one buddhist monk 2000 years ago meditating in a tree, we know that Shaolin is a Chinese martial art.Bakaman 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Joe Carrara 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) WP:SPA[reply]
Oppose - as per baka --D-Boy 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose - "Disputed connection of Mr. X, Y's relationship and Z" compared to "Influences on Z". I do not know how to support this motion. Creation of the article is just common sense.--Scheibenzahl 12:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Workshop&oldid=1136070430"