Case Opened on 13:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:07, 18 May 2006 (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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

DuncanBCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jacrosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Metzerly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thesocialistesq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hydriotaphia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Statement by DuncanBCS

User:Jacrosse advocates a distinctive view on the evolution of Max Shachtman and the socialist tradition that Shachtman's ideas have animated,Shachtmanism (I think these diffs firstly [1] and secondly [2], in which each statement seems to currently unsupported by reliable references, are concentrated expressions of this view). Reliable references that support this distinctive view have not been found; some references that have been offered by Jacrosse seem to not support the view (including [3]). We have reviewed thousands of pages of documents; Our interim assessment is that this distinctive view is original research. Jacrosse has added information informed by this view to a number of pages. Lacking credible references, various editors have used Talk pages and tags to initiate discussion and to rework or remove unsupported claims. Jacrosse has not attempted to support his view with credible references, but instead deletes Tags and agreed revisions which counter his original view. Mediation has proven unsuccessful, and his pattern has extended to a number of pages. His unsupported revisions and additions have resulted in suspensions for vandalism. However, his general approach is unchanged after a number of months. I request that the Arbitration Committee take this case under consideration in view of the continuing intransigent and disruptive behaviour of this user. He appears to have a persistent inability or unwillingness to work with others and his conduct following the moderation requests leads me to conclude that he does not intend to change his approach.--Duncan 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently found Jacrosse a difficult editor to work with, particularly because of his tendency to make major, obviously controversial edits without edit summaries, and his refusal to discuss on the talk page until his edits are reverted (forcing people who want discussion to at least verge on an edit war). - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse this summary. The problems with this editor have been accurately described. They date back to the editor's first edits back in November 05, and he has shown litle change. -Will Beback 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hydriotaphia

I first encountered Jacrosse at—of all places—the Animal House article, where he kept on adding a completely irrelevant rumor about the followers of Leo Strauss, a rumor that he presented as fact. (If you see the history of this article, you will see that Jacrosse added the rumor a total of 39 times between Nov. 28, 2005 and Jan. 31, 2006.) Throughout this period he was uncivil[4], [5] and refused to discuss his edits in any meaningful way. (See the lack of response by Jacrosse on the talk page.) When he stopped re-adding the edit, he seemed to show no understanding of what Wikipedia is about.[6]. He has also refused to discuss his POV edits on the Anne Norton page. His behavior at Neoconservatism has been more of the same. He keeps on reverting without discussion (he has reverted the article at least 68 times between Dec. 19, 2005 and Mar. 31, 2006), and what discussion he participates in has an uncivil, extraordinarily vehement, and unproductive tone.[7] I believe he is detracting from the Wikipedia project, and distracting editors from productive work. He has been treated by almost all contributors with nothing but civility and respect, and he has responded with scorn, silence and edit wars. Hydriotaphia 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Metzerly

I generally agree with the statements previously submitted. I have never been more frustrated on Wikipedia than when I've dealt with Jacrosse (on pages such as French Turn and Max Shachtman). Jacrosse has been completely unwilling to communicate consistently with others, shunned attempts at compromise, and ignored mediation attempts. He forfeited his spot in the French Turn mediation by choosing not to participate, and yet he continues to insert his sourceless POV into this article. He has twice been blocked for brazenly disregarding Wikipedia's basic ground rules. He removes others' contributions that do not agree with his--justifying these actions with insults in edit summaries (examples: 1 2 3). Countless people have tried to reason with him on his talk page to no avail. In short, he is stubbornly inserting his personal views into numerous articles, and he is wasting many editors' time and energy. --metzerly 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse has once again inserted his text into the disputed articles (diff's: 1 2 3 4) without any sort of communication with the respective editors. --metzerly 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HOTR

I fine that Jacrosse has been very adamant in pushing his original research regarding the relationship between Trotskyism and neo-conservatism in several articles. While several authors, most recently Francis Fukyama, have commented on the Trotskyist origins of a number of key neocon thinkers and on the possible influence of Trotskyist and Marxist methods of analysis (eg dialectics, historical materialism) on neoconservative theory no one has claimed the view Jacrosse propounds as fact - that modern neocons are actually unreconstructed Trotskyists or Schactmanites (a Trotskyist offshoot) who are hiding their politics and pretending to be on the right for tactical reasons. Jacrosse's edits are all designed to promote this view, a view that is the product of his own original research (and numerous flawed assumptions, misterpretations and plain ignorance of certain facts).

As a byproduct of his argument, Jacrosse also minimises to the point of denying the rift between Shachtman and Trotsky in the 1940s and the divergence of these two political trajectories (with many Shachtmanites allowing their opposition to the USSR to take them into the realm of Cold War anti-Communism in the 50s and 60s and one wing of Schactmanites going as far as to support the Vietnam War into the 1970s). He also denies, minimises or is oblivious to the splintering of Schachtman's followers into a number of different conflicting directions over issues such as Vietnam. Rather, he insists that this movement was monolithic, deliberately burrowed itself into the right while being crypto-Communists merely hiding their leftism as part of a left wing conspiracy to take over the right - rather than a case of some individuals with common beliefs going through an evolution or metamorphisis in their political thinking and abandoning many if not most of their youthful beliefs.

I've come across Jacrosse in the articles related to the Philip Roth novel The Plot Against America. A counterfactual historical novel which imagines what would have happened had alleged Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh become US President in 1940. Most of the edits I've had a problem with are in Burton K. Wheeler (Lindbergh's Vice-President in the novel) where Jacrosse has insisted on pushing his POV about the book. My problem was with the following passage by Jacrosse:

In the novel The Plot Against America (2004) by Philip Roth, Wheeler serves as vice president in the administration of President Charles Lindbergh. This was perhaps the most controversial and illogical aspect of the widely criticized work, which portrays Wheeler as imposing martial law in Lindbergh's absence, whereas the real Wheeler had been a leading opponent of the martial law imposed in Montana during World War I.

It is also significant that the very title of The Plot Against America is taken from a pamphlet published against Wheeler during the 1946 campaign by supporters of the Communist Party USA, which accused both Wheeler and Harry Truman of plotting "the Hitlerization of America". [8]

His initial passages "This was perhaps the most controversial and illogical aspect of the widely criticized work," and "It is also significant that the very title ...". were very similar to the passages he tried to pass off at the end of our discussion on the need to avoid POV and to provide citations - see [9] or the need to avoid editorializing in one's writing given his last contribution in which he tried to pass of this unsupported POV statement:

This was an especially controversial part of the already controversial book

and

Further, the very title of The Plot Against America appears to be taken from

which was not actually supported in the citation he provided. Homey 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jacrosse

In all cases I have only engaged in good faith efforts to find reasonable agreement, I have often conceded on many issues, such as with Animal House. However, I find, especially with those engaged with me on Shachtman and related articles, a very hostile spirit of sectarianism and dogmatism, I still don't even know what's meant by "original research", why that accusation is salient, and why it causes such a furor. In short I have only acted in the spirit of contribution and collaboration which Wikipedia was made to engender.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. Dmcdevit·t 05:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 14:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Fred Bauder 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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

Principles

Assume good faith

1) Assume good faith requires users to relate to other users upon the basis that they are here to work productively on the creation of an information resource, not simply to advance their point of view.