Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)[edit]

WHEELER should not be on trial, but his case is a very clear symptom of where the wiki system is not working well. WHEELER, like most editors who contribute bulk content, has a slant. Eventually a certain tone or opinion can be detected, and the group editing process is supposed to sort out the NPOV. Unfortunately that’s not what happens. Rather than the wording being gentled, or the expert opinions expressed made more diverse, his content, and now even articles, are being deleted. This is done not becuase his sources have been contridicted by citations, but rather by majoritarian wiki-democracy. Some would argue that this is correct, that the views WHEELER cites are not wanted or needed here, that his sources are outdated or otherwise inferior to modern sources. That is likely often the case, just as with the 1911 Britannica, the ancient Greeks and others WHEELER cites are not the best examples of modern usage. They are however invaluable in understanding the etymology and linguistical heritage of a term.

Unlike many of those who dispute with him, WHEELER very rarely violates policy (3RR, civility, etc..) He has his opinions, and he cites his sources. Everybody has opinions, but not everybody has his sources. IMO, of those who have been disputing with WHEELER, only a handful have enough knowledge on "classical greek definitions of the Republic", and so forth to present a legitimate argument against his sourcing. Out of those few users, there have indeed come objections, but infrequently, and on matters of modest import. How many of us cite what we write? I know I usually don't. When I am contradicted, I request (or am requested to provide ;) citations. This is either done, or the user making the claim backs down (hopefully). WHEELER's problem does not stem from a lack of citations on his part, nor an abundance of such possessed by his opposition. Rather it is an attempt to silence him and the antiquated ideologies he represents with his citations. The majority has no special claim to the truth.

Commentary on prosecution[edit]

I ask that it be noted that a week (9 Mar 2005 - Mar 16, 2005) has passed without the prosecution having provided evidence against my client. In response to his opening statement, I would say that WHEELER working within the wiki-process is to his credit, rather than his shame, and that WHEELER having been persecuted based on his ideology is an aspect of his defense, rather than an able prosecution of him. (as of Mar 16, 2005)

I think everyone can agree that WHEELER has strong feelings, and that at times he has approached the line of acceptable expression of them. I would ask that his copious contributions and the unfortunate campaign of deletion against them be compared to his modest policy infractions and obvious distress. I can't imagine how annoyed I'd be if I wrote up a huge article like User:WHEELER/Classical definition of republic, only to see it deleted. Personally I feel WHEELER needs to make a paradigm shift in the manner in which he relates to the editing process, as do many members of his opposition. Policy needs changed as well, which is not the arbitration committee’s responsibility here I understand, but I think it can be taken into account. Voting is not a good method of determining factual accuracy or NPOV, and the trend within the wikipedia community towards voting blocks and "friends lists" of guaranteed voters is an unfortunate one. In summary, this case is a sign that we need to start thinking outside of the box. (as of Mar 20, 2005)

See also[edit]

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Snowspinner[edit]

Let me start by laying out the problem. The problem here is comparable to the problem with Xed. That is, WHEELER assumes widespread bad faith inherent in the failure of the project to exactly coincide with his political ideology. Where Xed was a leftist/socialist ideology, WHEELER is a clasically situated brand of conservativism. WHEELER's opponents, it seems, are all Marxists or homosexuals. Sometimes both. The results are the same - unending sterile edit wars in which there is nothing but bad faith.

Original Research[edit]

  • [2] [3] [4] [5]
    • I submit here the earliest versions of several of WHEELER's articles. I do this mainly to show the degree to which WHEELER's contributions, rather than being good and informative contributions, are POV original research that must be tortorously fixed by contributors, being fought by WHEELER every step of the way. At their best, they're stubs offered without any sense of their classical context. At their worst, they're POV rants.

20 July[edit]

  • [6]
    • WHEELER demands that the article Effeminacy (Which he started) deal only with one sense of the word.

27 July[edit]

  • [7]
    • WHEELER insists that modern definitions have no place in the article because of their lack of truth.
  • [8]
    • WHEELER accuses those arguing against him of homosexual propaganda.
  • [9]
    • Personal attack? It certainly seems intended as one.

29 July[edit]

  • [10]
    • WHEELER insists on using only classical sources.
  • [11]
    • Further evidence of page ownership.
  • [12]
    • Generic bad faith and hostility.
  • [15]
    • More suggestions of a homosexual agenda.
  • [16]
    • Declaration that truth - classical and Christian truth, specifically - is more important than NPOV.

20 February[edit]

  • [17]
    • WHEELER immediately lists for undeletion. (The undeletion widely fails)


23 Februrary[edit]

24 February[edit]

  • [19]
    • WHEELER declares his disregard of the NPOV policy.
  • [20]
    • WHEELER demands that anonymity ends on Wikipedia. These both put WHEELER inalienably at odds with foundation principles (NPOV and anonymity).

6 March[edit]

  • [21]
    • WHEELER re-lists the classical definition of republicanism article for undeletion.

10 March[edit]

  • [22]
    • WHEELER makes clear his intention to edit from a POV on the arbitration page. This declaration leads to the edit wars as you can see on Effeminacy and Republic (Among others).

11 March[edit]

  • [23]
    • This shows the depth of his political engagements and how they effect his view of things. I submit it mainly to demonstrate how unlikely it is that any other Wikipedia editor could work with him, considering the vehemence of his views.
  • [24]
    • Declaration of the Marxist nature of Wikipedia. (This post got spammed about eight places, incidentally)

14 March[edit]

  • [25] [26] [27]
    • Although not personal attacks, these makes clear the regard he holds his fellow editors in.
  • [28]
    • WHEELER makes clear the degree to which he considers his own opinion to be worth more than other contributors'.
  • [29]
    • WHEELER declares that only experts should be allowed to vote on deletion.


  • [30]
    • In a move that goes against the spirit of WP:POINT, WHEELER demands citation for every single fact that SimonP asserts, because Simon asked for citation on one of WHEELER's.


15 March[edit]

  • [31]
    • Since his article has been deleted, he links to a mirror of the article instead.
  • [32]
    • WHEELER makes clear that he does not accept definitions of "republic" within the last 2000 years, arguing that it should be defined classically. This is an exact mirror of the effeminacy debate.


16 March[edit]

  • [33] [34] [
    • WHEELER again makes clear his widespread lack of good faith in the project, particularly that it is Marxist.
  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vanavsos
    • I submit this page in full. It's a VfD for one of WHEELER's creations. I submit mainly because, although the article was kept, there was also an overwhelming consensus that the article needed serious work. Note also the (previously linked) demands that some people's votes not count, and the typical behavior whenever a page that WHEELER considers to be his comes up for deletion, whereby he floods the page with citations from which he derived what is usually the original research that the article was.

17 March[edit]

  • [36]
    • WHEELER launches in a strange attack against "Snowspinner and his cohorts," treating the VfD on Vanavsos as some sort of unmitigated victory, despite the fact that the message was overwhelmingly "Keep the topic, fix the content."

Evidence presented by Wheeler[edit]

We live in a world where there is ongoing socialist conversion of Western culture. That is a fact.

  • Nietzche The transvaluation of values. (Which means that old meanings are converted to new meanings).
    • Example. The 2nd volume of Paul A. Rahe, and his whole thesis of Republics, Ancient and Modern, is that a process began by Machiavelli, of dissimulation. That of "retaining the name" while changing the substance thereof. See the whole second volume but an extract of the core whole methodology is on pg 291; as excerpt from Machiavelli himself. This is what is happening to Classical terms and meanings.
    • NEW BIBLES Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.
OLD BIBLES The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958
1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”
The King James Bible
1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Here is actual proof of the cultural transformation at work. Old bibles translating Malakos one way, and a total eradication of the meaning of the word in Modern bibles and its confusion with other terms and meanings. This is a FACT, this is not some fantasy I dreamed up nor am I cuckoo, a lunatic or an idiot.


  • Wikipedia's Own Front page
    • Please notice the words: Free and Open Content. I take this to mean Old Words, Old meanings, old Concepts, etc are also acceptable. That is what "Free and Open" means to me. There are no restrictions on "content". Yet many want to restrict "content" only modern words and modern meanings I am told.
Examples:
Kultur
Classical definition of effeminacy
Classical definition of republic
vanavsos
      • Example of what I am told: "Wheeler, It's not our job to care about cultural transformations. We're here to encyclopedically cover topics, which primarily means covering them in their current usage." a statement by User:Improv moved from here to talk page and back again. See, Wikipedia says "Free and Open Content". What he is saying that Wikipedia, is not "Free and Open" content but only "current usage". Read, "modern" usage. This is my whole point. Is Wikipedia "Free and Open Content", or only for "modern" "current" usage of the terms, hence Wikipedia IS NOT "Free and Open content".
"There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion." AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I want to point out this sentence: Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. Right after [Classical definition of republic] was voted off, they began: check out, Talk:Arete_(excellence) where the title was changed, and Deletion notices went up on Family as a model for the state and vanavsos. What was happening is that "once they proved" I was erroneous in one thing, they began to start voting and deleting my contributions to Wikipedia. They were impugning my scholarship and knowledge and my trustworthiness as a contributor. They used the voting off of the [Classical definition of republic] to impugn my character and have assaulted my honor and basically called me a liar and a no good scholar. That is the "inference" of their comments and actions. All these assaults on my contributions is a way of assaulting me and of calling into question my worth and my edits and my pages, therefore wrecking my reputation on Wikipedia.
  • The practice of the Oxford English Dictionary. All meanings of the word and its history and its origin are presented. I am told only "modern" definitions apply at Wikipedia.
"Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light."
I had new information. I presented it.
The people refused to believe that Sparta was a republic. I found new evidence of modern scholarly work, Paul A. Rahe, his three volume masterpiece, Republics Ancient and Modern, said Sparta is a republic. User:Snowspinner immediately deleted the second request for undeletion. Snowspinner did not adhere to Wikipedian Policy but immediately deleted and I mentioned this on his talk page about his professionality: User_talk:Snowspinner#Why_the_deletion.
this went against policy where it states: New information is the consideration for undeletion.
But no problem. No matter what I did and what evidence and scholary quotes and references all disregarded my evidence. Evidence of modern scholary quotes and references were ignored by all. And then the community refuses to listen to references and quotes.
  • On 25 Febuary 05, Caption is shrunk. 1 making it unreadable by Mel Etis.
Why would you do this?
    • I restore the text image so that Classical people who have no access to Younge's Lexicon have the benefit of knowing synonyms. Here simonP reverts it back to a caption 2.
    • I restore it again with information and Psychonut deletes it at 3 and Dbsmith reverts what left of my contribution 4. So everything I have done is edited out and then demands that I have a footnote and yet SimonP writes all sorts of stuff has no footnotes and noone says a thing about it. They complained about:"DELETE This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a research paper. It's too long and the primary author expects readers to follow footnotes to read other sources. I shouldn't have to read other sources to understand an encyclopedia article. User:Hedgeman 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) or "Citing sources in support of original assertions is OR, but describing what sources say themselves is not. The article has a great deal of the latter." User:Gazpacho 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) at Wikipedian deletion record at Classical definition of republic.
No matter what I do footnote, don't footnote it its all POV and will be reverted and I will be punished. Then go to mixed government, politeia, classical republicanism not a single footnote. No one bothers them. I am bothered by not footnoting and then when I do, it is called original research and grounds for deletion. I can't help it.
  • The British, Canadian, Australian "modern republican" Wikipedians have control and nothing will get by them.

Evidence presented by SimonP[edit]

As mentioned on the talk page the question I would most want to see answered by this process is whether or not it is appropriate to add external links to pages that have been deleted through our deletion process.

Consensus to delete Classical definition of republic was formed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Classical definition of republic. The page was subsequently listed on Votes for Undeletion, and the consensus seemed to be to keep it deleted.

Subsequently Wheeler began adding external links to the same content, which he had copied to Wikinfo, to a significant number of articles. This included both replacing internal links (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40]) and adding it to external links sections (e.g. [41], [42]). These article namespace links have been deleted, mostly by myself as I believe that the links were an attempt to circumvent a VfD decision and that linking to one's own site is also a form of spam. Wheeler disputes this [43], leading to several weeks of debate at Talk:Republic.

Currently the full text of the deleted article exists at User:WHEELER/Classical definition of republic. Wheeler has also added the external link to the top of the talk page of certain articles (e.g. Talk:John Birch Society and Talk:Republic). I am unsure if this is appropriate, but any harm caused is marginal. - SimonP 17:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


Original research[edit]

I note that there is a proposed motion to declare that Wheeler's work is not original research. I think it is clear that at least some of it is original, and Wheeler himself has admitted as much [44]. - SimonP 17:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wally[edit]

I have little to add save my own, personal experience in dealing with WHEELER on one particular page — Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Initially, after reading WHEELER's profile and list of (admitted) biases, I felt him something of a crank. However, after I found and extensively copyedited (especially for NPOV, which was admittedly necessary) WHEELER's work on the Ritter page, not only did he not revert or dispute me, but indeed he thanked me for the contribution, which can be found here. I cannot speak to any other allegations against WHEELER, but it certainly cannot be categorically true that he rejected any changes to pages in which he had an ideological stake, which this very admittedly was. I also note that while he and I agree on pretty much nothing, I respect his willingness to put forward his viewpoints and believe very strongly that he has been a dedicated and thought-provoking contributor. Wally 16:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence&oldid=431112477"