Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell

Case Opened on 1 April 2005 Case Closed on 21:00, 21 July 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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Tkorrovi
• Paul Beardsell
• Matthew Stannard

Statement by Tkorrovi

Artificial consciousness article was created by me in July, 2003. There were no problems until March, 2004, and several people edited the article. From March, 2004, Paul Beardsell started to edit it, and started frequent personal attacks against me, which have continued now more than a year. I acted in a civil way and never responded them with offenses, apologized when there were misunderstandings, but the attacks, and also lies with which he, and some others, which I cannot say how many of these were sock puppets, tried to give a bad impression of me to others, didn't stop.

In December, 2004, the mediation started by Cimon Avaro, a member of the Mediation Committee [1], but the mediation failed, Paul Beardsell reacted with more personal attacks on mediation page [2], in addition to personal attacks by others on Simon Avaro talk page.

The article's talk page is also unreasonably long because Paul Beardell et al forced talk about trivial issues, and often nonsese, seemingly trying to make everything concerning the article a nonsense, or hard to follow. He also tried to delete almost all the content of the article several times without discussion, and made several attempts to create a parallel article like [[Artificial consciousness according to Tkorrovi]] [3] without my consent and with mostly not my text. He often reverts my changes without discussion or even explanation. There was also one NPOV label violation, putting label back without explaining, while all the requirements for removing the label required by the Wikipedia rules, were fulfilled [4]. Considering all that I, and probably some others, were almost unable to edit the article in last months. He also added to article a nonsense, not related to the subject, like a text about disabled writer Christopher Nolan.

Personal attacks by Paul Beardsell (same as User:Psb777) against me on the article's talk page only (mostly negative personal comments):
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Paul Beardsell was informed of this arbitration request at [20]. Tkorrovi 13:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Beardsell

OK, I have found a short cut way of making a formal response and I think it is the only one I can really make in the circumstances: I cannot respond! The plaintiff does not say in a focussed way what he is complaining about and he does not say here what has prompted this arbitration request now, many moons after the events which seem to be the basis of his belated and his many FALSE allegations. I strongly suspect this is now prompted by my recent reversion and criticism of his ill-judged removal of some interesting content at artificial consciousness but who knows? In any event, this is the first crossing of swords between us for some time. Natural Justice demands that a complaint be timely. Not only does he not make a focussed and timely complaint, neither does he say what remedy he is seeking. There is therefore, in my opinion, no case to answer and nothing to arbitrate. I will not respond until a focussed complaint is made, one which I can address if appropriate. I do however submit, for the record, that Tkorrovi's submission here is mostly a typical misrepresentation of the facts. Paul Beardsell 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cannot respond in 500 words to Tkorrovi's complaints. Indeed, it would take many 1000's of words to do so. I do not think his complaints should be allowed to stand as is and that he should be forced to make a cogent, focussed complaint - something I can reply to without having to take a fortnight off in order to compose the point by point rebuttal. Such a rebuttal will be simple to do, but will be very time consuming. If this complaint is accepted for arbitration (and I do not see why it should) then I must ask the members of the committee to refrain from taking a position BEFORE I can present my detailed rebuttal. And I will need a fortnight to prepare it. Paul Beardsell 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And it is in preparation. Paul Beardsell 03:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is frowned upon to call someone a troll even when the fact that they are a troll has been well established. I plead guilty to not being able to keep quiet while an article is being mugged. I plead guilty to not following some good advice re combatting trolling in some Wikipedia articles but I believe I have either broken no rules or any infractions of the rules by me are of such a nature they do not deserve any sanction here.

I ask that the "evidence" presented by Tkorrovi be carefully examined. Each link should be followed through. The concurrent events, the editing of the article, the editing of the talk page and the edit comments should be examined as a cohesive whole.

Justice demands that the statements and supporting rambles by Tkorrovi made here, in this case, be examined critically, sentence by sentence. The assertions and allegations are not backed up by evidence and are, most often, nothing much more than prevarication.

But should you disagree with me note the events which Tkorrovi cites took place, mostly, a long time ago. The events immediately before the filing of this case do not require ArbCom intervention. You may be choosing to interfere where it is not necessary.

I would have thought the ArbCom would find it unacceptable if in a case before it the statements and commentary presented to it are riddled with prevarication and misrepresentation (oh, heck let's call a spade a spade, that's all I'm accused of doing, anyhow) LIES to the extent that it is not easy to find a single paragraph which does not contain a blatant one: That is the nature of Tkorrovi's statement and comments here. I challenge you. Indicate any ten line piece of prose written here by him and I will find at least a handful of, err, misrepresentations.

Is it punishable personal attack here at Wikipedia to point that out?

Paul Beardsell 07:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That I have criticised Tkorrovi is without question. That the criticisms were personal or not, punisable or not, or, given either of those, recent or frequent enough to be brought to arbitration now are the questions which need to be addressed. I say that the criticisms were not personal, of if it is found that any of them were, that they are not punishable. That position I reserve. But should that position be found without merit: if any criticism of mine is found to be both personal and punishable, that (1) they were isolated and seriously provoked by unreasonable and punishable conduct (including personal attack) by the complainant and (2) occurred such a long time ago that some natural justice "statute of limitations" applies. It is just too late for Tkorrovi to bring this complaint here. There is no longer a problem with my conduct, if there ever was.

In my view the ArbCom should, upon having perused the evidence, refused to examine the case further. That opinions, (pre-judgements i.e. prejudices) were given by several of its members before I had made any response would, in any other system, be considered a travesty of justice. But, in any event, now that more time has passed, now that my view is being fairly considered, one presumes, then surely the case will now be struck out. Do yourselves a favour: Do not hear this trivia, you open the floodgates. I, for example, could have several unrelated cases in preparation for you to hear, if this out of date trivia is the nature of cases you will hear here.

Paul Beardsell 07:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision I have raised a number of issues which are not being addressed. Paul Beardsell 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish there was one set of links for all the pages. There is /Evidence and /Proposed decision and each of those has a talk page. What else? Paul Beardsell 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/2)

• Accept - this is indeed a full scale edit war in progress. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:29, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) Waiting for Mr. Beardsell to have a say, per request. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:00, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) Abstain for the moment to await an update from tkorrovi, if one is forthcoming. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) Accept. I can fully see now some of the underlying causes of this dispute just by looking at the statements above. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:26, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 16:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'll suspend my "accept" vote briefly ➥the Epopt 00:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain (for a reasonable amount of time) until Mr. Beardsell can make a comment. →Raul654 20:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 01:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ambi 11:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. But I wish people took a blind bit of notice of the 500-word thing. - David Gerard 13:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 15:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell (Psb777) are prohibted from editing Artificial consciousness for the duration of this case.

Passed 5 to 0 at 14:34, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary

3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No original research

4) No original research.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

5) Cite sources. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources." This particularly applies to controversial additions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Disruption

7) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Passed 8 to 1 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

8) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users are allowed to edit Wikipedia

9) While some Wikipedians consider anonymous editors less credible than logged-in editors, anonymous users have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and the community has consistently rejected all moves to block anonymous users from editing. See m:Foundation issues.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Creation of article

1) On July 22, 2003, after a false start by another editor User:Tkorrovi created the article artificial consciousness [21]. Initially citing no authority, as he refined the article he included a reference to the book "Impossible minds" by Igor Aleksander, ISBN 1860940307 and to a website he controls: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/database/2/ [22]. On July 31, 2004 User:Heron copyedited the article [23]. After several more edits by Tkorrovi [24], [25] the article assumed the final form found by User:Psb777 (Paul Beardsell) when he made his first edit on March 8, 2004 [26]. This edit contravenes certain facts in the article but also cites no specific references.

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Original research and lack of references

2) Following Paul Beardsell's entry into editing the article, a few others also tried, but all who edited the article relied on argument and reason rather than references to published information. This is nicely captured by the disputants pointing out on March 13, 2004 the authority the other was relying on, [27] [28], their own! An exception is a link to this discussion at [29]. But again the discussion soon reverts to argument [30]. Later that day a new organization of the article was proposed by Paul Beardsell, but again without reference to any authority.

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi's point of view

2.1) Tkorrovi's point of view, derived from the ai-forum, is set forth nicely at [31] and [32]. Artificial consciousness is not consciousness but observed manifestation of the attributes of consciousness. This subtlety was seldom appreciated by later editors as they wrestled with the question of how a machine could be conscious in the sense that humans are [33]. this edit clearly shows that Tkorrovi relied on forum discussion on the ai-forum for authority.

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Source of contention

3) The article Artificial consciousness has been a continued point of contention between the users Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert-warring

4) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell have revert-warred with each other on the article artificial consciousness. [34], [35], [36]

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

5.1) Paul Beardsell has engaged in innumerable personal attacks on Tkorrovi [37] , [38] , [39] (especially [40] [41] [42] [43]) and on other members of the community ([44]). Tkorrovi has also made some personal attacks [45], [46], [47], "stop trolling", [48]

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 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.

Regarding unreferenced information

1) Any information in the article artificial consciousness which is unreferenced or referenced by an inadequate source may be removed by any Wikipedia user.

Passed 7 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reinsertion of unreferenced information

2) Should User:Tkorrovi or Paul Beardsell reinsert any unreferenced or poorly referenced material in the article artificial consciousness they may be banned for a short period (up to a week for repeat violations).

Passed 6 to 1 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

(closer's note for clarification: with 3.1 passing, this would only apply to Paul Beardsell if the article ban is lifted at any time)

3.1) Due to a demonstrated inability to work with each other on artificial consciousness, Paul Beardsell is banned from editing the article indefinitely, and Tkorrovi for a period of three months.

Passed 7 to 1 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole

4) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell are placed under a six-month personal attack parole. Should any administrator consider one of their edits constitutes a personal attack, they may block the offender for up to 24 hours.

Passed 7 to 2 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Appeal

1.1) Should, after the above ban on editing artificial consciousness expires, Tkorrovi demonstrate that he can work productively on editing that article, he may apply to have other restrictions placed on him lifted.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)