Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell/Proposed decision

Request for preliminary sifting of Tkorrovi's accusations

It would be of benefit to us all for an arbitrator to just go through the list of Tkorrovi's accusations to say which of them can just be discarded straight away on the basis that the behaviour of which I am accused is not against the rules or is in fact what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do (I am charged with good Wikipedia behaviour several times) etc etc so that I do not waste everyone's time (esp mine) defending myself against charges that are just not going to be upheld. Paul Beardsell 03:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE BY THE ARBCOM Paul Beardsell 04:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way this works. It would take as long for us to pick out and vote on each point to dismiss as it will for us to pull out those that we need to deal with. As you can see from the process, we work by writing proposals for anything we feel important and relevant and vote on each. The only way I could see it as possible for us to reject a whole lot of points in advance is for us to all sit down as a group and decide on each. We do communicate via mail and IRC of course, but we don't have the sort of meeting of all arbitrators this would require. The points that we reject as not relevant, we do by not including them in the final decision. -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Sannse for her response to this and other questions. Without wanting to take anything away from Sannse, at least he did respond, and leaving aside the issue of whether or not I am happy with the content of the responses, that it has taken over seven weeks for the responses, despite reminders, is just not good enough. It detracts from the process. Paul Beardsell 19:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The process will continue until the arbitrators decide. That is their power. There are no time limits set, nor were there ever. Paul decided to respond. He needn't have done so. (There are perhaps parallels with the character in Kafka's The Trial, who sought out the judges in order to achieve "justice" and found them reading porn.) The process will continue until the arbs are either bored with having to deal with it or bored with not having dealt with it. There is no hurry. It may be that the ongoing evidence gathering needs to be ongoing. How can the arbs make up their minds until they have made up their minds?

Anyway, check out [1] to find an example of two wikipedians appearing to discuss the scope of a new article. Does this start with a genuine discussion of how to scope a wikipedia article, and make it interesting? The point of demonstrating this here is to allow comparison with the level of another discussion that is further down when you get to [2]. Matt Stan 22:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does every wikipedian realise is that everything they write here remains available for countless people to read indefinitely, and to refer to? It is, however, difficult to search the wikipedia history files (unless there is some feature that I haven't yet discovered). Therefore when claims are made it can take a while to find any counter-claim, within wikipedia itself. Matt Stan 21:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the arbitrators?

I can not find the list of arbitrators on this case anywhere. Doubtless there is one. Please provide a link. Paul Beardsell 03:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee contains a list of all Arbitrators; as nobody has recused themselves from this case all Arbitrators that are listed there as Active will be hearing the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:16, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Then I wish to place on record that having recently been in a dispute with Raul654 I requested him to withdraw from the case. My reasoning is that I do not want to be in the morally ambiguous position where he finds in my favour and I can keep quiet but I am tempted to shout foul if he finds against me. As you can see he has refused to withdraw. The reasoning used is too arrogant for me (or, I suggest, any fair minded individual) to stomach: I would like to appeal this issue to the panel as a whole or to some higher authority. How do I do that? If this is well documented all I need by way of response is a link. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE Paul Beardsell 04:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal is generally a personal decision, although we often ask for the advice of the other arbitrators in ambiguous situations. From what you have said here, I see no reason for Raul to recuse - an unrelated conflict with an arbitrator is not an automatic reason for recusal. If Raul is happy that he is able to look at this case objectively, then I support his decision to hear the case. As no other arbitrators have spoken up on this point, its fair to assume that they also agree with Raul's decision. If you wish to communicate with the committee as a whole via email, then a mail to any one of us can be forwarded to all of us. Or, the "higher authority" is Jimbo - although he is probably unlikely to intervene in this. -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have the accusations stopped now?

Tkorrovi has recently added to his list of accusations. When must he stop doing this? Surely at some point he must be deemed to have completed his list. I cannot comment, assuming I choose to do so, on a moving target. Paul Beardsell 22:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE Paul Beardsell 04:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit on evidence other than the closing of the case (which would be delayed to allow consideration of any evidence given at a late stage) -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "accusation" and "evidence". Question remains. Paul Beardsell 00:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbering the accusations

Tkorrovi has presented his evidence in some semblance of approximation to the format requested but a large number of accusations are listed. The requested format is not useful when such a long list is presented. Should I choose to respond I need to be able to refer to them one by one. Can Tkorrovi be directed by the ArbCom to number each of them or will an arbitrator do that task, or will the ArbCom allow me leave to edit his accusations inserting refs to which I can refer? Paul Beardsell 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE Paul Beardsell 04:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The format you have used, of quotes and responces is fine -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Principle proposed by Psb777

Psb777 added a principle directly to the proposed decision page. Editors should not do this, and I've left a note for Paul pointing this out. I've listed it here for consideration by the arbitrators.

Matters must be brought to the ArbCom timeously

10) The issues brought to the ArbCom must be substantial and on-going and not issues which are no longer current or which are minor.

- David Gerard 12:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the set of rules where it says I cannot edit the proposed decision page directly? Seems to me David Gerard could have voted against the principle if he did not like it, or for it if he thought otherwise. And will this "proposed principal" receive the same lack of response and attention as my other issues raised above? Paul Beardsell 03:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: This is a proposed principal! I am not editing the decision of the ArbCom, just proposing a principle. David wants the discussion over what principles are apt moved to that discussion's Talk page! This is one level of indirection too far. I have replaced it where it belongs. Why? As my statement has long since made abundantly clear (and I have reinforced the point recently): That Tkorrovi makes his complaint too late is one plank of my defence. If the arbitrators will not by themselves read my statement and work this out for themselves and identify that proposed principle by themselves and then consider it of their own volition, if only to reject it, then the appearance of a fair process of justice is lacking. I am giving the ArbCom an opportunity to rectify this. To show that they have read my statement, at least. Paul Beardsell 04:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have read it. We just don't agree with it. Ambi 06:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You call this process into disrepute. There is secret reasoning and secret conclusions, according to you. Paul Beardsell 06:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your proposal. My answer is: No. HTH. - David Gerard 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I am unsure what HTH means.) Are you saying that no reason will be given for your decision? This cannot be \the ArbCom's formal response as this is only a Talk page. Therefore the response should be on the proposed decision page. When do you expect a formal response to my proposed principle will be made there? Paul Beardsell 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

It seems this very principle, the general principle I propose here, and which is rejected here on behalf of the ArbCom by Ambi and, possibly only on his own behalf, by David Gerard is indeed a principle in routine use by the ArbCom. See this admission by Ambi. Therefore I ask for my proposed principle to be considered again. What is the statute of limitations here at Wikipedia? I suggest three weeks. Paul Beardsell 00:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense that we would waste time with a case that isn't relevant anymore. It's just the case that in this particular incident, it was still relevant, and thus, that that principle was not relevant. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations, nor will there be in the future. The ArbCom responds to a case if there is a need for a response, ruleslawyering be damned. Ambi 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very convenient to be able to dismiss any argument with such a put down. Especially when what one says becomes the rule. It is you who is ruleslawyering, not I. By now you are in a position where you have lost some face and could lose some more. A good judge would never find himself where you are. Put the principle on the page, let's see a vote. Paul Beardsell 10:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make Ambi's argument here clearer: The ArbCom would never consider a case which was not relevant because to do this would be a mistake and the ArbCom doesn't make mistakes. Therefore the case is relevant. This is ridiculously self-serving "logic", nothing but a circular argument. Paul Beardsell 10:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There've been several cases where events changed, making the hearing of the case no longer relevant, such as where two parties had resolved a dispute, or one party had permanently left Wikipedia. That's clearly not the case here. Ambi 13:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unindent: Nothing demonstrates maturity and fairness better than admitting a mistake. If the ArbCom is never or very rarely admitting mistakes then something is wrong. Certainly, some cases have been abandoned because one of the parties has admitted "guilt" or has withdrawn from the case on terms acceptable to the ArbCom. But Ambi does not seem to accept in his reasoning here (and still does not seem to admit to) the possibility that the ArbCom could decide it had made a mistake in accepting a case. Therefore, a case must be worthwhile hearing because it has been accepted for hearing! I ought not to have to point out again that this is faulty logic. Paul Beardsell 19:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the case in which I am embroiled, where apparently it's "clearly not the case here" that a mistake has been made in hearing the case, well this is something to be discussed. But discussion would be pointless if the case is deemed worthwhile hearing because the ArbCom would never make a mistake in deciding that the case is worthwhile hearing. Paul Beardsell 19:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him

In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for the remedy (making as light changes in your wording as possible:

1) Due to a demonstrated inability to work with each other on artificial consciousness and personal attacks, Tkorrovi is prohibited from editing that article for three months, and Paul Beardsell is prohibited from editing that article indefinitely.

Objectively analyzing both my mistakes, and the behaviour of Paul Beardsell, I think it would be just. Any joint appeal to stop the ban, is a very bad solution, as I feel that Paul Beardsell is much less interested in editing the article, has much less respect towars the article (an attempts of wholesale blank of the article) than I do. Also that does not ease the punishment against me, as it depends on many circumstances not dependent on me, like, say, Paul Beardsell leaves the Wikipedia etc. I made more contributions in Wikibooks etc, but in Wikipedia I mostly edited Artificial consciousness article, so the punishment is also much more severe for me, than for Paul Beardsell, for me it is almost equal to banning me from Wikipedia forever.Tkorrovi 17:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbcom's reasoning can be inferred: They do not take account of the quality of the contributions to the article. If article quality was paramount then Paul shouldn't have a life sentence. Letting Tvokorri loose on it again in three months' time serves the purpose of introducing a new act in the drama, because no doubt he will get involved in objecting to someone else's contributions to the article.

I'd have thought a better judgment would be to allow Paul back in if Tkorrovi starts to complain about anyone else, because Paul would have become vindicated, and the arbcom would thereby be insuring itself against the extremely unlikely possibility that it's collective judgment could possibly be even the slightest bit flawed. Such a judgment would also act as a deterrent from Tvokorri upsetting other contributors, because he'd know he might have to face Paul again. Such a judgment would also not be vindictive towards Paul (as the current judgment clearly is - if you look at what a worthy wikipedia contributor he is compared with his antagonist) and would therefore be seen to be more just.Matt Stan 01:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deal in content - that's explicitly not part of our mandate. We do, however, deal with unreasonable behaviour. That's why you'll almost never (there's some exceptions concerning science) see any findings along the lines of "X's contributions have been more valuable than Y's". It's probably also worth noting here that we generally deal with each user individually, responding to their own issues. If Tkorrovi was given leniency this time, but later became an issue again, and Paul Beardsell was given a harsher penalty, the fact that Tkorrovi may later run into further issues would not "vindicate" Paul. Ambi 02:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So a hypothetical illiterate user can provoke a highly strung literate user into making derogatory comments about the former's illiterate contributions. Then the illiterate user brings in the arbcom, whose members, not taking into account the quality of either contributor's material, ban the literate contributor whilst allowing the illiterate user to carry on. The literate user should have known better, the arbcom thinks. But, whilst not acknowledging the quality of the contributors' material, the effect of the arbcom's action is that the literate user is prevented from contributing whilst the illiterate user is encouraged to carry on. Surely if the quality of the contributions in the first instance is of no consequence then the arbcom should aim to ensure that the effects of its action likewise don't operate to reduce the quality of subsequent contributions. In other words the arbcom is taking a judgmental stance about others' behaviour but is divorcing itself from the consequences of its own actions regarding what is is ultimately there for in the first place: safeguarding the integrity of encyclopedia. Matt Stan 10:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If both contributors are deemed to have behaved unreasonably then it is the fact of the unreasonableness itself that should be dealt with, in which case punish both contributors equally. Alternatively, if there is to be an equitable judgment then it might perhaps, in the absence of any other yardstick, be appropriate to count up the number of unreasonablenesses of each of the protagonists and award a proportionate punishment. But a life sentence for one, and a three month sentence for the other seems disproportionate, implying perhaps that one of the contributors had got up the noses of the arbcom itself, which has then responded in a vindictive way. What is is about Paul's unreasonableness that (assuming he has a life expectancy of 25 years) justifies a punishment 100 times greater than that meted out to Tkorrovi? Matt Stan 10:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside personal attacks (which might be a better yardstick than instances of unreasonableness), would it be unreasonable for example for our hypothetical illiterate contributor to claim the authority of an English grammar manual (which he has, because of his illiteracy, misunderstood) to justify incorrect grammar in his contributions? If so, then you'll find in the current dispute that Tkorrovi has generated an order of magnitude more instances of unreasonableness than has Paul, and this should mitigate, to some extent, the manner in which Paul has responsed on occasion. One might also take into account the number of occasions when Paul has made attempts in good faith to correct Tkorrovi's work without making any personal attack. as this forms the background to the whole thing. Taking this line the arbcom might consider inverting the punishments it has issued to these contributors - if its judgement is to have any deterrent effect or act as a precedent. Matt Stan 10:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I claim the authority of an English grammar manual? I even never did any copy-edits on text entered by others, as I feel that others may do that better. But if we look at the misspellings etc, made by Paul and me, then the number is almost equal. And I'm thankful whenever one corrects my grammar.Tkorrovi 13:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is too much just to be faulty memory. Tkorrovi has been combing through all the history yet he seems to have "missed" this. Paul Beardsell 22:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not protest against correcting grammar there, discussion about grammar was a side issue there. Explained more in evidence and elsewhere in this case. Concerning the grammar, of course I made a mistake, I just thought maybe it's interesting to talk more about the theory, as certain example seemed to say a bit contrary, but this was one more time when instead of wanting to discuss, you want to show me in bad light.Tkorrovi 22:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tk twice again is shown to misrepresent what occurred. Paul Beardsell 23:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply adored the dialogue that Paul links to here. It was utterly enchanting - a foreigner arguing with an English-educated tycoon about an elementary point of English grammar, and arguing like a sea-lawyer that common usage was a matter of his opinion. I had a similar altercation with Tkovorri over his use of "what" where he means "that" - a slightly more subtle grammatical point perhaps, though I am not an English teacher. I concluded, from his subsequently continuing to make exactly the same mistake - more often than before - that he was a wind-up merchant or, in wiki parlance, a troll. I must say I got the distinct impression that Tkorrovi was enjoying the whole process, and that his pathetic-sounding complaints were pure histrionics. I think the arbcom should bear this in mind, and also look for inconsistencies in the way Tkorrovi expresses himself. On occasion, his words do hang together really well, and I can't believe that any recent improvement can be simply from his perusal of the Grammar of All Grammars that he spent a few days last June transcribing bits of into wikibooks. (The work he cites is, incidentally, a highly verbose piece of pedagogy that couldn't possibly be of any use to a foreigner learning English.) Although he claims to be an Estonian customs officer, I wouldn't be surprised if he's really a psychology professor at an American university (just a guess), and that he's having a really good laugh about the whole of this exercise - an exercise in making other people take themselves too seriously ;-) Matt Stan 22:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too much talk about grammar I think, not even relevant here. I say again that I don't work as an Estonian customs officer, and I asked you already several times not to talk about that. It is not relevant at all here, and it will not credit me if others contemplate my identity in public places like this.Tkorrovi 01:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lest there be any misunderstnding here, Tarvo did, in an earlier exchange post a photo of himself and tell us what he did. Paul made a comment about his haircut, if I remember. I can't dispute if Tarvo says he is no longer a customs officer. In fact he says the following now at [3] (though perhaps that's a different tkorrovi, I can't be sure, obviously):

• Having a university education I was a government official on foreign relations, I translate legal texts and texts on prevalent fields of life.

Tarvo, if you put information about yourself in a public place, are we allowed to use it? Matt Stan 12:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good to search the private affairs of someone in Google without his consent, also when it is not relevant at all. Would it be nice when I now start to search Google for you and Paul Beardsell, and find things like Paul Beardsell chasing his classmate with a 30 inch steel ruler [4]? I propose to delete this together with all private information here.Tkorrovi 13:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be good or it may be good. It depends on what you find out. I have not tried to hide who I am. If you ego-surf by proxy in my name, as I sometimes do in person, I'd not be upset. By exposing myself on wikipedia, I see no harm, if people are interested, in people knowing anything true there is to know about me. Someone who is shy in this respect might be thought to be hiding something and that they are being duplicious on some way. I haven't posted anything here in this regard that wasn't written by Tarvo himself on the internet, or remembered about things he has written. If you don't want potential customers to know that you advertise your services on the internet as an Estonian-English translator then I am puzzled! It is helpful to know a bit about the culture of the people one is corresponding with in this international medium (i.e. wikipedia talk). Paul is a South African. His manner of frank discussion is partly borne of that culture and his honest directness is an attribute that I have observed in other South Africans of my acquaintance. It is helpful to understand people's backgrounds in order to understand their actions. Estonians are perhaps a bit more mysterious, particularly Tarvo ;-), but I had an Estonian landlady with whom I shared a flat for several years before I got married, and we got on very well, so I have no prejudice against Estonians. I am English, by the way. Once one has established that one is conversing with someone of a different culture, who may understand some concepts differently (or not at all), then in order to maintain any meaningful dialogue one needs to accommodate the sensitivities of that culture. One should be careful calling anyone a racist, but I'd have thought one should be particularly sensitive about calling a South African a racist, even more particularly so in regard to Paul who, since I worked with him for several years, I happen to know is not one. Calling someone, who doesn't want you to know any truths about him, a troll is surely a crime of infinitesimal proportions in comparison. Matt Stan 00:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to expose yourself, it doesn't mean that everyone else must want it. I said that I don't want, and you must respect it. I think Paul doesn't want either. As I said many times, our nationalities (of me, of Paul, of you) are not relevant here, and I asked not to talk about it. I'm not very experienced in having a dispute about nationalities either, I also find such disputes more or less nonsense. If you didn't start to talk about it, in spite I asked you not to, for me it doesn't matter what nationality someone is, I first look what that person says, to understand who he/she is. And if my nationality is not a concern for that person either, or he/she respects my wish not to talk about nationality, then there is no problem in expecting good faith on both sides.Tkorrovi 02:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To 'expose oneself' is an English idiomatic expression meaning to take off one's clothes in a public place. 'It' is often used as a euphemism for sex. Taken out of context, therefore, to say "If you like to expose yourself, it doesn't mean that everyone else must want it." actually means "Just because you like to strip off in publc doesn't mean that everyone will want to have sex with you." I've never stripped off in public, so I can't comment on whether this statement is true in my own case. End of joke. But Tarvo has written about himself - it is not others who have written about him - and yet appears upset that people should read what he has written. I have requested that he expresses himself clearly, and that he doesn't insult my language by making out that its idioms are a matter of his opinion. He carries on, and others are upset by what he has written. Is there a lesson there somewhere? Matt Stan 08:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said "By exposing myself on wikipedia, I see no harm", only you know what you exactly meant by that, I thought you meant revealing your personal information, as "to lay open to attack" (one meaning of "expose" in 1913 PD Webster). But if you interpret it the way you do, you make a personal attack against yourself. I don't like these kind of jokes, at least they are not proper here.Tkorrovi 14:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When a dictionary gives more than one meaning for a word, one should aim to identify from the context which meaning was intended, not pick another meaning and try to construe the original utterance according to that other meaning, just in case that's what the author meant. I was using "expose" simply to mean "make visible", which I think is its commonest meaning, to which end it can be used literally, i.e. to enable one to see, or metaphorically, as in to expose an intention, or anthing that was previously concealed for whatever reason. Hope that makes sense. Matt Stan 15:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many contributors here don't publish any information about themselves, although many do a bit - on their talk pages - and that's fine. But gaffes can be avoided and sensibilities respected more easily if one does know a bit. We are, after all, human beings here, aren't we, not automata? Matt Stan 09:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But those contributors who do publish information about themselves and leave evidence of their attitudes here in wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet inevitably affect their own reputations and perhaps that of their community as a whole. What would other Estonians have to say about one of their own who calls a South African a racist without evidence and preaches to English people incorrectly about their own language. Would other Estonians support such behaviour, or wonder whether Tarvo was perhaps not the best possible ambassador for Estonia in creating good perceptions about Estonians in a publicly exposed medium such as this? Estonia is a relatively small country. Would one of its national newspapers be interested in a story like "Ex-customs officer arraigned by powerful arbitration committee for abusing foreigners on the internet". Has he thought about this? What affect might it have on international trade and the well-being of his fellow citizens if he was seen to be making a fool of his nation internationally? Matt Stan 09:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I called Paul's remarks racist, like the one that an anthropologist would be necessary to find out who I am. Well, comparing me with monkey was not much better. So I wanted to say that Paul sometimes makes racist remarks, ie that such remarks are similar to these made by racists. This was only about his remarks, and had nothing to do with Paul being South African, or other details about Paul's person. I made a mistake in that I did not express myself very well, or generalised it too much, so that one could interpret it calling Paul a racist, this was not what I meant. I already apologised for that. But this discussion started when you enforcingly started to talk about nationality, like you do now, in spite that both I and other users asked you not to. Then Paul joined the discussion and found it to be a possibility to personally attack me. So please stop the talk about my nationality, this is what I always asked you, and what you always ignored. Cannot you understand that a nationality of anyone is not relevant here, we talk about articles having nothing to do with my nationality. I also repeatedly asked a consent of both you and Paul to delete here any talk about irrelevant personal details. Please understand that I'm here because I wanted to edit some articles, not to give everyone a possibility to dig into my personal affairs. Here are no articles about me either, and I also don't represent anybody here. Please on the article's talk page talk only about editing the article, and do it constructively and peacefully.Tkorrovi 15:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about the intention at the moment when that finding of fact appeared. About other instances, "You act like chatbot what cannot understand that a mistake was made just by not pressing a key hard enough." is not an attack, because it is not about a supposed flaw, but a real flaw in your action, which is you criticizing me for writing "an" instead of "and", it is obvious for everybody that the reason was not pressing a key hard enough, and not that I don't know the "reference material" (Paul: "The word is "and", not "an". We will continue using the best reference material available."). I said "stop trolling" indeed in the end, as I did not find a conceivable way any more to stop personal attacks against me, sorry, I should have said "Please stop personal attacks against me". I explained about the user 80.3.32.9, who I first thought to be a sock puppet, on proposed decision talk page. Don't know what is wrong in me complaining about creating parallel articles (added two times in finding of fact, at present links 12 and 13).Tkorrovi 21:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

80.3.32.9

Just to make it clear, I thought at first, that 80.3.32.9 was a sock puppet of either Paul Beardsell or Matthew Stannard, because I had some reason to suspect that (Paul Bearsell used at least one sock puppet named Ataturk before). Later I started to doubt in that, and now I'm (almost) certain, that 80.3.32.9 was a separate user. And also, in spite of his not so good faith intentions at first, all conflicts with 80.3.32.9 are solved now.Tkorrovi 22:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other "proposed principles"

The other proposed principles are being neglected in the proposed decision so far. Is there any plan to make any comments on them? Paul Beardsell 22:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the proposal for a principle on timeliness - I agree with Ambi and David's rejection of this. This is something to assess on a case-by-case basis. If you are referring to other proposed principles, please be more specific and give a link. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the timeliness principle that I was referring to here. The ArbCom itself identified 9 principles. So far they have commented on perhaps only two or three of those. Paul Beardsell 22:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all principles will have an associated finding of fact or remedy (and not all FoFs will have an associated remedy). Sometimes stating a principle is enough in itself - we are reminding or informing the participants of the policies and conventions that relate to issues in a case. Simply doing that may be enough in some cases. That said, there may be other findings as the case progresses -- sannse (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tony Sidaway on arbitration cases talk page

Thing is, we've all been where you have been. We've all encountered pretty much the same kinds of situations you have encountered. For some reason things didn't work out between you and Paul. Well now the arbitrators are picking up the pieces. Did you grant him the benefit of the doubt? Did you, in other words, assume good faith? Did you attempt, seriously, to make peace with him? These are important questions. They will be asked and an answer will be found. If you have kept to Wikipedia policy then there is no problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to show all that, I try to start from the beginning, in the archives, of what I said in numerous occasions. Later many different ways were tried to find consensus, like peer review, request for comment, mediation (the Paul's additude to which was described in the evidence).

Benefit of doubt:

Archive 1

"OK then why don't you include the facts you know." "I accept adding opinions of everybody as I always did, the more people do it the better. In fact I didn't remove anything what you wanted to add"

Archive 2

And I indeed always allowed to add everything which Paul wanted to add, except only during that one edit war, which probably gives Paul a reason to say that this is not true, my this comment in archive 2 describes a possible deletion then "Exactly, and therefore I as everyone have the same right to edit as you do. I left in several of your changes, but because Wikipedia is edited by many people, you cannot want that your changes remain exactly as you entered them. I understand that your last change was just moving parts of text to other places, I cannot see the purpose of it, or then please explain what you exactly wanted to say with that.".

Archive 6

"But why bother with finding out whether strong AC is correct or not, just include it together with other views." This was a view of Paul, which I did not agree with, and found it wrong, but I didn't oppose including it, giving Paul a possibility to add all his views in the article.

Archive 9

"It was your idea to introduce all these terms, but then you saw that they are not good enough and started to change them. I didn't want to name them at all, just list what different views there are. But if you insist that they must be named, then we supposed to change names again."

Peace:

Talk page archive 1 "Please discuss" [5] Me: "Please discuss, would we please try to act reasonably." Paul: "I *am* discussing it. But I can not allow a nonsense ... Who says you cannot define something which is subjective? ..." From the evidence you see he said to me "So you say, but you are not an authoritative source", so the last question is not necessarily because Paul doesn't understand, but because I'm not allowed to say anything myself, even on talk page.

Archive 6

Me: "And then, wouldn't it be better to concentrate from tremendous philosopical and scientific problems on how to write the article, just include all the views there are and that's it. I'm by far not against discussing, but we may not go much forward that way." To find a solution to go ahead without conflict. Me: "Yes it's better to reach consensus in discussion, at least in the most important thing -- how to organise the article." More recently on talk page, I apologized and proposed to delete a senseless dispute about a comment which appeared to be deleted, as this indeed gives no value to the talk page. No agreement was given to me, and I did not want to delete it again, once more to avoid a possible conflict.

Some misunderstanding by me maybe

Archive 1

Paul: "What if the fly watches on helplessly as it seems unable to consciously change its reflex action to always react the same way. Using tkorrovi's argument combined with tkorrovi's involuntary knee reflex we would prove tkorrovi without consciousness. Indeed, tkorrovi could prove it about himself. Seems to me failing *one* test proves nothing." In fact a correct argument, in that even consciousness cannot control all behaviour of a human. Could be taken as a joke, if it just was not presented in the middle of serious discussion, and accusing me in different mistakes. Just for a reader who doesn't read carefully, it seems not a joke, but gives an impression that I said something really stupid. All this talk about fly was added in the article by Matthew Stannard (now deleted because of the criticism of others than me), and all I said was that a fly has not necessarily any ability of consciousness, it just tries to fly away from a large moving object.

Tkorrovi 15:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no accusation by Paul to insult Tkorrovi in the above - Paul was just using the word "tkorrovi" to represent a proper noun, an instance of a person, just as an economist might use a two cows illustration in an economic argument. Matt Stan 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain flies are useful. There was some very clever work done wiring up a fly's brain and then shining lights around to see what the fly did. This demonstrated that the neurological basis of the fly's considerable attentiveness is similar to our own, i.e. all sentient beings (at least from insects onwards) have this ability to predict events, which is one of the ingredients of consciousness. Matt Stan 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, I understand it must been difficult of being a boss of Paul Beardsell, but so always defending him doesn't do him no good, as that way he would never understand what is wrong in his behaviour.Tkorrovi 17:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insult! Insult! Apologise! That is how Tkorrovi would respond to such a comment were it made by me. Here find a link to an example of just this and are other links to false accusations of insult by Tkorrovi. Tkorrovi accuses me of insult in this case over much milder comments by me. Grunt doubtlessly should consider this insult (i.e. the one in the above paragraph) by Tkorrovi as admissible evidence in this case and add it to the list. (Tk, for your benefit, that was irony.) Paul Beardsell 21:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issues re Fred Bauder's 'finding of "fact"'

[6] Paul Beardsell 23:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ambi, someone said someone wasn't human

See [7] - Paul Beardsell 23:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO REPLY YET. Paul Beardsell 21:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reply. I note Ambi has made scores of edits since I raised this issue. Ambi writes someone said someone was "not human" and uses this "fact" to justify, in the proposed decision, that I be dealt with more harshly than Tkorrovi. I never said such a thing. Ambi has gone strangely quiet on the issue. (No other ArbCom member has commented either.) I contend that Ambi must still not have read behind Tkorrovi's "evidence" to see it for what it is. I don't see how it is acceptable for Ambi to make such a claim in the proposed decision without seeing the "evidence". Extraordinary unreasoned prejudice is plain. Paul Beardsell 19:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still no response. Paul Beardsell 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The admissibility of evidence

Some of the references being used here to show, supposedly, that I "personally insulted" Tkorrovi are from the evidence I have given at this self same hearing. All I was doing was repeating what I had said before! In the real world in e.g. a libel case (which is the closest real world legal equivalent I can think of) you can repeat your so-called "libel" in the court case itself without further penalty, assuming the libel is proved. The same rule should apply here. In the famous Oz obscenity trial one was allowed to say "fuck" with impunity. Here, if I am going to be accused of "personal insult" then I must be allowed to repeat the supposed insults during the procedings. So, you cannot (well, you can and you do but you should not) criticise me for what I say during the, err, trial except if I am guilty of contempt of court (which I am). If Tkorrovi or, more to the point, the ArbCom is going to cite instances of my so-called "personal insults" then they should do so directly from when they supposedly occurred. This is important! If I am going to plead innocence because (a) they were not "personal insults", or (b) they were not "personal", or if I am going to plead mitigation because (c) they were justified by reason of them being true or (d) they happened such a long time ago it is simply vexatious of Tkorrovi to raise them now, THEN (1) I MUST BE ALLOWED TO REPEAT DURING THE HEARING WHAT I SAID WITHOUT FURTHUR PENALTY and (2) THE ORIGINAL "PERSONAL INSULTS" MUST BE CITED IN ANY FINDINGS AGAINST ME. Paul Beardsell 00:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Paul Beardsell 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO RESPONSE. Paul Beardsell 00:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing. Paul Beardsell 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness

Explanation of my point of view, and where it comes, and my intentions and expectations in creating the article, on Fred's talk page [8].Tkorrovi 15:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...together with my refutations of several more sets of Tkorrovi's misleading assertions. Paul Beardsell 22:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

It is said twice by Ambi in the proposed decision that I have been bullying Tkorrovi. From bully I read: "bullying is most often used to describe a form of harassment associated with being performed by a child who is older, stronger, or otherwise more powerful socially, upon weaker peers." Wikipedia is not a school playground, but in a fight between two equally capable boys, it is unusual to call one of them a bully. In the scrap between us I suggest Tkorrovi was holding his own end up fairly well, albeit through the underhanded low blows of neglect for the principles of honest argument. (I note that the ArbCom has yet to censure Tkorrovi for repeated misreprentation.) Ambi is not (yet?) saying I have bullied anyone else other than Tkorrovi. So here, if I am "older or stronger or otherwise more powerful socially", if Tkorrovi is one of my "weaker peers", then in what way is that? Is Ambi saying that Tkorrovi is in some way less capable than me? In what way does Ambi think Tkorrovi is deficient to me? In what way, according to Ambi, does Tkorrovi deserve special treatment? Paul Beardsell 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Ambi should be required to state why she says I have been bullying Tkorrovi and she should have to quote evidence. Or she should withdraw her "personal insult". Paul Beardsell 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi, let me loosen my overwhelming grip on your puny throat to ask, what say you? Paul Beardsell 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a reply to Paul Beardsell's comment on the arbitration cases talk page, not a reply to the previous question by Paul Beardsell. Paul Beardsell wrote: "I wish I could see an alternative. My accuser in the case claims me saying to him, as you now say to me, "When in a hole, stop digging" was a personal insult. And I wish the ArbCom would pay better attention to due process."

This was just about an example of your bullying. You asked me an obscure question, which was in fact two questions, where the second was not related to the first. When I then said that I replied to the first half of your question, and you should clarify the second, you replied "When in a hole, stop digging." [9] This "dispute" on the talk page of the article was also one example of a nonsense discussion which you initiated. You disputed the obvious, the word "This" ("This view") in a sentence in the section where a certain view was described. It resulted in a long nonsense argument, and was not the only nonsense argument initiated by you, I guess often the aim was to flood everything reasonable said on the talk page. But also, in the end you wanted to leave an impression to the reader, who would not care to read all that not so very interesting talk, that it was me who said something stupid, or did not understand. Unfortunately, I was forced to talk to you, as I was expected to "work together" with you. Submitting the request for arbitration was finally the only way for me to say, that I don't agree working together, in the conditions when I'm treated the way I was, and in the conditions of being regularly attacked by you.Tkorrovi 15:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Make your mind up, Tk. When it suits you, you complain that I would not discuss anything. At other times, when it suits your argument, you complain that I wanted to discuss every issue to the nth-degree. Paul Beardsell 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note this is the first time you accuse me of bullying. (Perhaps the ArbCom could feed you with some more tips on how to conduct your case.) Is there anything else of which you have forgotten to accuse me? Paul Beardsell 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think I meant by "when in a hole, stop digging" it was not what you accused me of falsely in relation to that comment. It was no "personal attack" or "personal insult". Your accusation is frivolous and vexatious. You are too quick to shout, "Insult!" Doing so is troll-like. (Apparently it is acceptable to say it like that.) Paul Beardsell 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You call my argument "nonsense"! That is a grave personal insult! And not the first time either. I have a list of similar unacceptable conduct by you. I am off to the ArbCom to file a complaint! (Tk, for your benefit, that is a joke, OK? At your expense.) Paul Beardsell 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

By the definition found at Wikipedia itself and quoted above: Ambi is a bully. She uses her priveleged position to make attacks on a page where I cannot defend myself. She refuses to withdraw or substantiate her personal insult. That is bullying. Paul Beardsell 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ref in proposed decision

Grunt (I think) has wrongly listed some references as being evidence of "personal insult" between me and Tkorrovi. In addition to the references which refer to procedings here, in this case, and which I argue (above) are therefore inadmissible in the case, is this, currently numbered 26 in the proposed decision. It is an altercation to which I was not party. But is evidence (by the questionable standard of such taken in this case only) of "personal attack" by Tkorrovi on another party. But not me! Please remove this from being listed under my name in the proposed decision and move it elsewhere under Tkorrovi's name. Paul Beardsell 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Grunt to amend proposed decision. Paul Beardsell 21:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grunt has made an amendment but in such a way that does not acknowledge that I am accused only of insulting one person but Tkorrovi has, by the standards being applied here at least, insulted two people. Paul Beardsell 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambi

Ambi has made assertions on the proposed decision page which I assert are false. I have made this plain here and on postings on her home page. She has not responded to my postings despite the fact that she has made scores of edits since I have made my objections clear. I (and other less special users) are forbidden from editing the proposed decision page. I give fair notice: I WILL REMOVE HER FALSE ASSERTIONS FROM THAT PRIVELEGED PAGE IF SHE DOES NOT RESPOND TIMEOUSLY. I define "timeously" here as before the end of her next editing session at Wikipedia. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell 02:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - doing this would be vandalism and a good way to get me to block you for 24 hours. Snowspinner 03:01, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner, you are a minor irritation. You also know not the meaning of the word vandalism. I was not bluffing as Ambi fully seems to understand below. You might have been able to block me BUT you would have not been allowed to revert my change to the page, as you are not on the ArbCom, fortunately. Paul Beardsell 19:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you would find yourself surprised as to whether I'd be allowed to revert vandalism. Snowspinner 04:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You can, of course, revert vandalism. I said nothing to contradict that. Paul Beardsell 08:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing arbitrator comments from a decision page would be vandalism. I think you'd also possibly find yourself surprised by the lack of disagreement my reverting you there would cause. Snowspinner 04:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

That you think something vandalism does not make it vandalism. And a consensus proves nothing. What, I ask he who knows not what vandalism is, is calling someone a bully without reading the evidence? Paul Beardsell 05:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Threats are bad. Nonetheless, I've removed the comment until I get a chance to go substantiate it. Ambi 03:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It took a threat to get some action out of you. Anyone (and I mean anyone) would think this is a Court of Summary Justice. The default behaviour should be to check the evidence first. Not after making a serious and unsubstantiated accusation conclusion. Paul Beardsell 19:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fell into that trap. I did not make a threat. I was accused of a threat. What I should of said was: "If that was a threat then it took a threat...". Paul Beardsell 02:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Still no response from Ambi. Paul Beardsell 02:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who attacked whom?

I note now it seems to be acknowledged by the ArbCom that Tkorrovi personnaly attacked/insulted Matt Stan, who has recently been added as a party to the case by Sannse. This means that Tkorrovi has attacked both Matthew and me. No one is suggesting I attacked/insulted anyone other than Tkorrovi. Tkorrovi continues to play the victim on this case and so this newly acknowledged fact seems pertinent and it is missing from the findings. Paul Beardsell 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE. Paul Beardsell 02:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What an "insult" is

User_talk:Grunt#Tkorrovi_et_al:__Drowning_the_witch Paul Beardsell 09:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) or [10]

There too Grunt openly declares that he is not deciding this case on its merits. Paul Beardsell 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close

I object. Pending resolution of Ambi's and of Grunt's unsubstantiated, serious and false allegations against me I am against this case being closed. Grunt has changed his vote, he says, because I have attempted to intimidate the ArbCom. No evidence offered. Me pointing out that this is disgraceful behaviour that reflects badly on him and the ArbCom and therefore on Wikipedia is used as evidence against me in this case. This is not justice. Ambi accuses me of bullying and despite acknowledging she has offered no evidence to support this allegation and acknowledging that she must find the evidence or withdraw her allegation she has neither presented evidence nor has she withdrawn her allegation. Indeed: The allegation stands on the proposed decision page where I am not allowed to comment. Disgraceful! I suggest strongly that it is not in Wikipedia's interest nor in the ArbCom's interest to close the case in its current state. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_Close. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom resignations

Coincindence? See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#ArbCom_resignations. Paul Beardsell 12:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative resolution

Please see this suggestion. Paul Beardsell 13:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]