Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell/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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&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 User:tkorrovi

• 18:14, 13 Mar 2004
  • Content. Unexplained deletions on controversial article. Removed more than 60% of the article, replaced removed paragraphs with keywords, like "spatialization", "analog I", "analog Me", "excerption", "conciliation" and "narratization". Reverting this change resulted in series of extensive changes. [2].

• 21:07, 13 Mar 2004
  • Possible use of sock puppet, later named User:Ataturk, now there is no such user [3] [4].

• 00:42, 25 Apr 2004
  • Personal viewpoint. A paragraph including a reference to children's book about Pony the Merrylegs, [5].

• 00:00, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "screw loose", a longer text [6].

• 12:05, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That Tkorrovi consistently misrepresents the facts is well established" [7].

• 17:23, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are a dishonest troll, tkorrovi. Please go away", [8].

• 23:53, 3 May 2004
  • Ignorance of Wikipedia policy, inserting NPOV label without a proper explanation or reason (the only explanation "Tkorrovi insists on his particularly spin on every issue. This article is not NPOV"), a sequence of edits [9] [10] [11].

• 00:10, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are not an asset to Wikipedia", longer text [12].

• 11:35, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi's persistent trolling and dishonesty destroys any good will", [13].

• 14:25, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "he's paranoid", [14].

• 14:42, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That is correct. Tkorrovi is worthless troll", [15].

• 15:05, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi caught out again in another barefaced lie. If he can twist the facts to support his view he will", [16].

• 15:34, 6 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "So you say but you are not an authoritative source", [17].

• 00:27, 7 May 2004
  • Removing a paragraph with reference to the article, the only explanation was that it doesn't belong to his "Genuine AC POV", [18].

• 15:50, 7 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "When in a hole, stop digging", [19].

• 19:05, 10 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are a pain in the neck to deal with", longer text, [20].

• 07:35, 11 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That's the paranoia I mentioned earluier", [21].

• 13:51, 2 Dec 2004
  • Ignorance of Wikipedia policy concerning the NPOV label. Putting NPOV label back without a comment or explanation, the label was removed after all requirements necessary for removing it, provided by the Wikipedia rules, were met, [22], diffs of the last necessary changes to comply with NPOV label removing requirement [23] [24] [25] [26].

• 07:42, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "A correct argument is a valid argument where the premises are correct. Neither test applies, of course, when the argument is submitted by Tkorrovi", longer text, [27].

• 17:52, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi, let someone else have a go with "your" article", [28].

• 20:21, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. Cimon Avaro talk page, discussion about mediation. "Tkorrovi is a pest", "Tkorrovi's understanding of the Wikipedia common procedures and standard editing behaviour is as warped as his understanding of his pet subject", longer text, [29].

• 21:48, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "Edit boldly. Ignore Tkorrovi. That is what is necessary", [30].

• 05:53, 11 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "You remind me of that", with a picture of monkeys in a car, yelling to the passing pedestrians "Bastards! Homo Sapiens!", meant me as a monkey. On Cimon Avaro mediation page, during the mediation [31].

• 07:40, 28 Mar 2005
  • Consensus. Didn't want to allow me to edit the article by reverting my changes (I made different changes every time), without agreeing to explain or discuss, writing an absurd edit summary "remove non-grammatical, non-sequiter addition by Tkorrovi which is UNFIXABLE" concerning the text which was exactly copied from a scientific paper, more explanation in my comment in the arbitration request, [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37].

• 22:38, 28 Mar 2005
  • Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration page. Changed the title of the arbitration request of this arbitration submitted by me, from his user name to my user name [38] and second time [39] . Changing the title changes the meaning of other users' edits, at least in this case.

Questionnable or wrong edits by Paul Beardsell: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Paul Beardsell forced into the article the term "Strong AC", or "Genuine AC", never used by any scientist before. This caused problems on the whole structure of the article, to accommodate his view, as a compromise to have "NPOV". as he interpreted it. [48]

Some of the underlying reasons of this "conflict" [49].

I submitted an arbitration request against Paul Beardsell [50]. I didn't see any provided evidence in what I am accused before starting the case, why the case was made against me, in addition to Paul Beardsell?

Concerning the evidence by ugen64:

(ugen64 was asked by Paul Beardsell to provide evidence here [51] [52])

4 April 2005

• I did not argue so much about the headers or other miniscule issues, if Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard did not change the headers, and move the text within talk page so frequently, and emphasize the miniscule issues.

• The only thing I said, was "anonymous, please register", I don't understand how this can be interpreted as preventing the anons from editing, or "taking to own the articles".

• I inserted a sentence without sources, it is not said anywhere that all sentences in the articles, like logical conclusions, must have sources. But, after this sentence was disputed, I removed it at [53].

• 13 March 2004 I don't see it as trolling, that prediction is an aspect of consciousness was argued at [54], which is a peer-reviewed paper, as said earlier. What Paul Beardsell states, is something which I only heared Paul Beardsell to say, and it doesn't even seem to be a logical conclusion based on any source.

• 13 March 2004 This edit war started from Paul Beardsell removing most of the content of the article, I mentioned earlier. I was a new Wikipedia user then, with not much edits, and therefore I had not much experience to deal with such conflicts correctly. But in the end, the article was protected in a version favourable for Paul Beardsell, by ugen64.

• Sorry, couldn't find that from the history, the history is only 500 changes deep, and the earlier conversation is not there. Don't remember saying that, but this is also not an attack against any person in particular.

• 30 March 2004 This was one of the series of major changes, which followed removing the content by Paul Beardsell. I would not describe it as a "wholesale revert", rather ugen64 added a lot of content, which I partly replaced with almost the same amount of content, these both were major changes.

• 30 March 2004 The user mentioned, an anonymous user 80.3.32.9 deleted the whole talk page of the article [55], which I think nobody considers a "good faith". I thought it was a sock puppet of Matthew Stannard, as it was created just then, and appeared together with Matthew Stannard, though later I had some doubts about that. There is no common definition of trolling, but the trolling by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard I mentioned, is how I call this [56], ie an exercise of winding up a user, including the personal attacks both by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard. I don't remember saying exactly that, but I considered to submit a request for arbitration, talked about it, and said exactly that -- I shall submit a request for arbitration, if there will be no alternatives, so this was not a threat.

But see Wikipedia:Trolling 81.155.14.34 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see that I deserve any punishment, or ugen64 is going to double punish me for edit war almost a year ago, when, as I said, I was a beginning user with not much edits, and measures against me (protecting the article [57]) were already taken. I though consider it necessary to ban Paul Beardsell, because now already almost a year he did not want to settle the dispute, and his hostile behaviour didn't change even recently. This arbitration request by me was the last resort, no measures taken earlier, or in a civil way not responding to his attacks, didn't change Paul Beardsell's hostile behaviour. In Wikipedia I have almost only edited the Artificial consciousness article, and because of personal attacks, even this has been severely hindered.

Hehe, you've gotten better at it. And anyway, I can't punish you. What would I do, block you for 24 hours: "edit war and personal attacks 13 months ago"? :) ugen64 00:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users (81.155.14.34) started to edit my evidence [58], they should stop doing that.

Please also look at the commentary page here [59] where the discussion goes on. Tkorrovi 19:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the evidence by Paul Beardsell:

• Archive_1 This is a misunderstanding of what "first used" means. It is not possible to establish, who mentioned the term "Artificial consciousness" fist, some may have done that hundrieds of years ago, there just is no record of that, so this was obviously not what I meant. What I mean about using a term first time in science, is providing the first definition of it in a peer-reviewed paper. And this in my knowledge was first time provided by Igor Aleksander in "Artificial Neuroconsciousness: An Update" (International Workshop on Artificial Neural Networks, 1995), and the link for that is [60], not a link to any article written by me. In fact, that definition is from the earlier paper, "Towards a Neural Model of Consciousness" by Igor Aleksander (ICANN 1994), but I couldn't find that paper in the Internet, so I couldn't provide a link to that. There are no links to my articles neither in the article nor discussion. Concerning the "forum I dominate", I provided a link on a talk page to AC forum, in Archive_1 [61] and in Archive_2 [62]. In Archive_1 I did it just to provide a place to discuss the issues, which may not be appropriate to discuss on the article's talk page. In Archive_2 I provided links there to articles, not written by me, just that everyone could add there the links he finds.
• Archive_2 This is again about that edit war mentioned earlier, just it was not possible to discuss the changes in these conditions. You may notice spelling errors or wrong wording in the comments there, just consider that the comments succeeded each other sometimes in seconds, as this was the only possibility to discuss with Paul Beardsell and others, it is not possible to think much in such a short time. Concerning the archives, it seems to me that they were not archived correctly enough, something seems to be missing, especially in between Archive_1 and Archive_2, and it is not possible to verify it, as the history is only 500 edits deep. What I said about anonymous contributions was that which was mentioned earlier here, I just said "please register", not that I do not allow anonymous contributions. Maybe I reverted some anonymous edits, but not because they were anonymous, just that I was like a squirrel in the wheel then, foolishly wanting to cope with all these massive changes by several users and sock puppets, and incorporate them into the article.
• We must use only the original history here as evidence, not a poor summary, this summary is wrong and incomplete.
• I don't remember calling Paul a racist, I only remember asking him to stop the racist remarks, and one of his remarks was that an anthropologist would be necessary to find out who I am. Unfortunately, this happened on 10 Apr 2004, but the article's talk page history goes back only to 28 Apr 2004. Find it somewhere here [63], search "anthropologist". Unfortunately not all conversation seems to be there, Paul Beardsell made many remarks concerning my nationality, or whether I am human or not. Maybe I wrongly called them racist remarks then, as I had no understanding then of the reasons of his personal attacks against me; I didn't realise then, that Paul Beardsell simply uses every possible way to attack me personally. Me being just a user he stumbled upon, who doesn't accept his ways, and a user who edited an article on somewhat controversial topic, which not so many other users visited at that time, and therefore a user, he chose to "wind up".
• User Chinasaur should substantiate every thing which he said about me, now these are just a false accusation against me. I have no idea what this user did that, never saw that nick before, maybe he was asked by Paul Beardsell, as his comment appeared at the same time when Paul Beardsell contacted people like Ugen64 to help him against me, I don't know.
• Matthew Stannard is a friend of Paul Beardsell, who has participated in personal attacks against me, so his statements against me cannot be considered as statements of an independent witness.
• Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Links to all talk pages under the pages of this arbitration case, which were made not available from the pages of this arbitration case due to renaming this arbitration case from "Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell" to "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell", and not moving the talk pages: [64] [65] [66] Fixed now.

Evidence presented by ugen64

4 April 2005

• Firstly, in general, tkorrovi has been acting childish, disputing miniscule issues (in Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 3, for example, he spent a long time arguing about where to place comment headers on the talk page; in the current talk page, he spent a time arguing about the usage of "what and that", "what and which", typos, and so on). For some specific evidence:

• Generally:
  • tkorrovi has taken to owning articles: he's prevented anons from editing such as this edit summary; this has subsided recently (past four or five months)
  • he has refused to cite sources for dubious claims [67], but then has accused others of NPOV violations (this is evident by looking at the history and talk page).

• 13 March 2004
  • [68] - he's trolling, replacing his own weasel words (it was claimed, etc.) with "User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell claims..." but Paul has done the same.

• 13 March 2004
  • [69] in the midst of a 6 or 7 fold revert war, tkorrovi accuses Paul of removing content; after awhile, he takes to reverting edits just because they're made by Paul.

• 16 March 2004
  • "But now I'm back to deal with possible further trolling." [tkorrovi] (the aforementioned third archive)

• 30 March 2004
  • [70] - he wholesale reverted a *major* edit I made trying to restore NPOV, with little explanation other than "NPOV compromise"; obviously not a compromise, considering the edit war continued.

• 8 December 2004
  • Personal attacks: "'Then nothing happened until last month when another user tried in good faith to make this article worthwhile.' This was you sock-puppet, stop trolling." "This article was trolled by you [Matt Stan, I think] and Paul Beardsell, or stop talking about it, otherwise we must go on with arbitration, which was already almost agreed on my request."

• I believe tkorrovi has mentioned every possible piece of evidence I could find against Paul, so I won't bother with that. In short, both users should be punished, but not drastically - their behavior has subsided in recent months.

Evidence presented by 81.155.14.34 23:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to write comments inside others' Evidence, as I have already done. This just to point out that Paul might have just been reading "Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others." [71] when he made the suggestion that Tkorrovi was trolling.

However the wikipedia trolling article goes on to say, "Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem." So shame on you Paul! 81.155.14.34 23:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Paul Beardsell

Pending resolution of my long outstanding issues at the proposed decision Talk page, in particular the one relating to the numbering of Tkorrovi's evidence, I will not complete preparation of my evidence. But feel free to view it in its current draft state here.

<day1> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.