Jump to content

User talk:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reposted from WP:AN/I

[edit]

The following has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive159#Admin_plays_detective...what_next.3F:

(begin repost)

Admin plays detective...what next?

[edit]

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. DurovaCharge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.
The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.
You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? DurovaCharge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. DurovaCharge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[1] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[2] DurovaCharge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? DurovaCharge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[www.stjoan-center.com/] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[3] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[4] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. DurovaCharge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[10] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[11] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[12] [13] [14] and at mediation[15] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[16] The account blanks other criticism without response[17] including a suspected sockpuppet template[18] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[19] [20] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[21] [22] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[23] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[24] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. DurovaCharge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. DurovaCharge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.
Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).
The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.
Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.
For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.
Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.
You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.
My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:
  • Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
  • Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)
To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.
Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?
You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.
You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.
With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.
Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.
You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.
You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.
You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.
You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.
You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.
A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.
Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.
A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.
Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from iUniverse.com. This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).
You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.
Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.
The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.
There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. EReference 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails WP:RS, and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS.
Here's the byline on Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing: "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in this article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.
What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in JAMA--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in JAMA and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of JAMA at that point...
Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Since you won't let this drop I'm going to analyze the latest spate of accusations. If nothing else it should show why other editors really need to check allegations more closely from now on.
You again alleged that this organization is not scholarly because its members fail WP:RS. You justified this in part by stating that Stephen Richey's book fails this test because he's an amateur without a university position. This is puzzling since a search of Wikipedia finds that this book is cited as a source several times in the main Joan of Arc article and the Joan of Arc Bibliography article. The edit histories of both show that these articles have been repeatedly edited by you yourself. With all due respect, this puzzling pattern begs the question: Did you object to this book before or only after it became apparent that the author was associated with this organization you're trying to discredit? In the first of these articles that book is not only cited but also extensively quoted in the text itself (for example, see this part here. This fact could hardly have been overlooked since entire passages from the book are included so prominently in the text. Clicking on previous versions from the edit history shows that they've been there a very long time without being removed.
The WP:RS standard has nothing to do with the wider issue of scholarly merit since WP:RS is a purely internal regulation which governs WP inclusion but does not necessarily affect someone's legitimacy as a scholar. Snidow's book clearly has merit because it was endorsed by an expert. Richey's book appears to have received good reviews from De Re Militari for example. A scholarly organization can be composed of independent scholars without violating any rule and indeed many of these organizations contain quite a few independent scholars. Wikipedia's RS rule would only be germane if you want to remove any of their books from WP articles, in which case Stephen Richey's would appear to be the chief one which would require removal.
I think your other criticisms are also clearly irrelevant or unfair. In brief: the publication clearly states that the peer reviewers are peer reviewers. Listing them in a single line may be nonstandard but since they are labeled quite clearly to indicate their function your criticism on this point is petty. Your treatment of my AMA analogy was unfair, since your objections (the closeness of one group's members) would essentially boil down to the difference in size between the organizations. You need to assume good faith and remember that we're dealing with a very small and new organization which cannot be expected to have the same degree of distance between members that an old and large organization like the AMA would have. If you look at other small scholarly societies such as the Marie de France Society I suspect you could find the same objections to make. It's a small close-knit group, the founding members still have prominent positions and all the members obviously know each other pretty well since their website includes a jovial tongue-in-cheek group photo of them gathered together. Surely their peer reviewers must belong to the same small group unless there are lots of other Marie de France scholars out there somewhere who could provide meaningful critiques for this very obscure subject. The point I was making with the AMA example was that if the AMA also allows its own members to provide peer review (the procedure which you're complaining about) then the only point of objection comes down to how well the participants know each other. This seems a senseless objection when applied to a very small group which is just starting out.
If your criticisms have merit then you will need to remove the quotations and endnote references to Stephen Richey's book from the Joan of Arc article. I'll leave that up to you. I've been trying to bring this discussion in here to a close because I think it has gone beyond the productive stage and is turning into a classic Usenet debate. But ending it is also up to you since you are the one making public accusations which I've been trying to balance against some analysis. Some balance is clearly needed I think. EReference 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where did I say Richey's book fails WP:RS? Apparently a feature of a "classic Usenet debate" is the failure to read carefully. At any rate, it seems that none of the members of HAJAS have advanced degrees or have a position at a college or university--it's a group of amateur historians. So I can't see how it can be described as a scholarly society, or how its publications can be regarded as reliable sources.
Regarding the byline: when "'Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" was added to Joan of Arc bibliography by an IP user (presumably Editor X), the author was given as "Robert Wirth et al." (see this diff). The same credit was given to another work published by HAJAS. So, I'm not the only one who thinks that Wirth, Frohlick, and Walsh are being given credit as co-authors--Editor X does also. Or, perhaps he just doesn't understand how bibliographies should be formatted, in which case I hope he's not doing any copyediting at HAJAS.
Last (and least important): why do you assume that the peer reviewers of HAJAS must be members of HAJAS? Is it because no one else would pay attention to their work? Perhaps a quote from peer review is in order: "Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise." HAJAS would be on better ground if it recruited peer reviewers who aren't members of the organization, and who are recognized experts--for instance, professors in history departments! This is the practice of most academic journals--they find referees who are experts in the subject that aren't members of the editorial board. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have said that these people lack degrees or university positions. A bit of digging would find that Margaret Walsh is/was a university professor. If I had time I could check others.
In your last post you denied having ever said that Stephen Richey's book fails WP:RS. In your post the day before that one, at 23:49 on 10 December 2006 you said the following: "Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. ....To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association... the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS."
You quite clearly have said that Richey does not have the right credentials, by which I assume you would mean his book fails the standard you've been applying.
The rest of your comments probably require only brief observations. The method chosen by an anon at WP to list one of the group's books does not change the fact that this book quite clearly and explicitly does identify the peer reviewers as peer reviewers. Finally, I already cited examples of two other journals which also evidently use peer reviewers who belong to the same organization. Yet you do not criticize or dismiss these two for that practice.
I will ask again that you please allow this increasingly pointless discussion to finally drop. We both could be doing better things with our time. EReference 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty frickin' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. ♠PMC♠ 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. EReference 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is whether this editor and sockpuppets deserve a community ban. I think the final smoking gun is here.[25] For that account - which was created last August to impersonate me - almost the entire contribution list is blanking vandalism of old talk pages and talk archives pertaining to Allen Williamson's posts and favorite topics. I took the liberty of banning that account because I know for certain that it isn't me. With the exception of EReference (and regarding whom I'm on the verge of requesting a checkuser), support for a community ban has been unanimous. This discussion has continued for a week. Shall we proceed to the bans? DurovaCharge! 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me join the horus of 'awesome job'. It's not often that we manage to take down such a giant problem; unless some convincing evidence is raised that would suggest RfC or other form of DR, I agree with permbanning the problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm admittedly coming into this discussion late & perhaps after all is said & done (sorry, I've been busy with personal affairs), but I would endorse that Durova has more than adequately performed due dilligence on this matter: there is something questionable about the sources AWilliamson, et alia have been quoting. (I'm especially worried at AWilliam's sockpuppet's failure to provide bona fides to Adam Bishop (Adam's a real medieval scholar, & could easily verify any personal information.) This is one of the problems that I would assert every Wikipedian worries about: wonky information being slipped into Wikipedia. (Remember the NPA personality theory article?) Durova deserves our thanks for her hard work uncovering this.
As for EReference, I want to point out that any user who describes her/himself as "distinguished" more often than not does not deserve that title. Speaking from a few years of experience with Wikipedia, I'd say that there are a couple of dozen editors that this adjective could be applied to, but most of them have screwed up in one way or another in their time with Wikipedia. In short, one should never describe oneself or another Wikipedian as "distinguished" -- we have Barnstars that work just fine for that purpose. -- llywrch 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RFCU#AWilliamson, EReference has been banned as a Williamson sock. I guess that about wraps things up for this thread although I consider it highly probable that Williamson will try other sockpuppets. He's been known to switch tactics before when the detectives are hot on his trail, so here's my best estimate based on the patterns I've noticed:
  • His underlying topics of interest will remain the same but he'll attempt to focus on pages where he estimates a good chance of avoiding scrutiny.
  • He'll probably disguise some characteristics, such as his past switches between registered accounts that bickered on talk pages and IPs that avoided talk pages and bickered via edit summaries.
  • POV pushing, deletion vandalism, and edit warring are likely to remain dominant characteristics. Also misleading edit summaries. Vague and evasive attempts to pose as an authoritative expert are also probable. His pet theories can be distinctive since they're bad OR, which makes him identifiable by comparison against past behavior.
DurovaCharge! 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(End of repost)

StonerDude420

[edit]

I think User:StonerDude420 is another of this guys sock puppets. This account has been inactive for a long time but when it started the user was clearly experienced but prodding pages for deleting in a way that displayed poor judgment or ill intent. It looked a lot like a sockpuppet trying to hide what they were really trying to do. After a couple warnings the account went dead so I didn't pursue anything. A bot flagged the user page for something tonight and I glanced back at his contributions and one of the first things he did was create User:EReference/Userbox_Hamburger4;User:EReference is one of User:AWilliamson sockpuppets. In case it ever comes up User:StonerDude420 account should probably be checked added to the sockpuppet list.--OMCV (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very different edit pattern. DurovaCharge! 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova/Complex_vandalism_at_Joan_of_Arc&oldid=1138931640"