Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Move of Józef Łukaszewicz

Initiated by Novickas at 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Novickas
• Piotrus
• Halibutt

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Piotrus [1]
• Halibutt [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Possible bad faith in use of citations involved in the move of Juozas Lukoševičius to Józef Łukaszewicz. Arbitration was recommended.

Statement by Novickas

Although the page Talk:Józef Łukaszewicz is not especially cluttered, a summary is provided below.

• August 26, 2005 - Stub created as Juozas Lukoševičius [3]
• February 18, 2007 - Halibutt moved the article to Józef Łukaszewicz with the edit comment "yeah, another Lithuanian"

[4].

• Piotrus and Halibutt expanded the article.
• February 19, 2007 01:43 - Piotrus supported the move via citing 64 English-language Google hits on Józef Łukaszewicz .[5]
• February 20, 2007 05:48 - First protest of the move issued by another editor, mentioning the invalidity of the search results. [6]
• February 20, 2007 11:01 - Piotrus nominated the article for DYK. [7] More protests were issued, and a brief revert war ensued. The article remained under its current name, and was a DKY on February 22.
• February 28, 2007 - After performing the Google search in question, I commented on its troubling aspects. (See Talk:Józef Łukaszewicz - Citation of 64 English-language Google hits on Józef Łukaszewicz). No admissions of bad faith or sloppy research have been made to date.
• March 4, 2007 - I entered the case for mediation [8], and mentioned this on the article's talk page.
• March 6, 2007 - The response on the mediation page was "Allegations of bad faith are probably more appropriate for arbitration, not mediation. I move to close this one. TheRingess." [9]

The issue is whether or not there was bad faith involved in Piotrus' citation of 64 English-language Google hits on the name Józef Łukaszewicz. I performed the same Google search, and found that the overwhelming majority of the results were either Wikipedia sites that Piotrus and Halibutt had created and/or edited (Rasos cemetery and List of famous Vilnians), Wikipedia mirror sites of the same, or for other persons with the same name. Screen shots of the Google search are posted on Talk:Józef Łukaszewicz. The motivation for the bad faith appears to be a rush to DYK.

I find it impossible to believe that this error was made in good faith. They were in the process of researching and editing the article at the time. The merest glance at the Google hits shows their provenance; it isn't even necessary to open the links. It also strains credulity to believe they didn't know their own WP edits would skew the results. Note that the authors have never inserted an English-language citation in the article; the sole English citation currently in the article was added by me.

Piotrus and Halibutt should issue an apology. I'm also asking that they refrain from editing the article on Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, and the article on its flagship Vilnius University. This would enable WikiProject Lithuania's editors to bring these articles to GA or FA status within a month - we have successfully co-operated to bring several other articles to this status in the recent past. A look at those articles' talk pages and archived talk pages shows that a great deal of time and energy has been spent in disputation with Piotrus and Halibutt.

Statement by Halibutt

First of all, there was not bad faith involved in the move and - contrary to what Novickas suggests [10]- it was not Piotrus to move the article, but yours truly [11]. The move was done in good faith and in accordance with WP:NAME. Apparently some WP:NCON problems arose, but these are handled on the talk page and I don't see a need to mediate. In particular I asked for any source that would back up the claim that Łukaszewicz (who himself stated he's a Pole) is also considered Lithuanian by Lithuanians (not considered himself a Lithuanian, mind you, which could be quite hard to source). However, the plea for sources has not been satisfied as of now.

However, the issue is not of naming but of mentioning the Lithuanized form of his name (which is mentioned even without the sources requested, solely not to raise too much bad blood in the Lithuanian wikicommunity that seems to be a tad touchy when it comes to Polish-Lithuanian relations and people born in Vilna in the times when the town was not yet a part of Lithuania) and the arguments against the move were not raised so far. When counting simple google clicks Łukaszewicz beats Lukosevicius 23:1 (1310:57), with a large number of links in both searches being irrelevant (i.e. other people named the same way or simple errors). Note that the search excludes all wikipedia sites and its mirrors, so that part of Novickas' reasoning is also false. Same goes for Google books where Łukaszewicz beats Lukosevicius 10:1 ([12]-[13]). We have Łukaszewicz's own memoirs in which he explicitly states he was a Pole and uses his Polish and Russian names interchangeably (Lithuanized form is not mentioned even once). We have lots and lots of publications calling him a Pole and so far not a single one calling him a Lithuanian (even though we asked for such).

Having said that, I believe this matter is pretty much a lost case for Novickas. I believe he/she realized that and decided to take the matter to some external mediation instead of providing sources and taking part in a normal naming dispute. Wrong way to go if you asked me. Not that I had anything against such wikilawyering... Anyway, I find it strange that Novickas decided to spread his/hers accusations of bad faith here and there without even questioning the move at the respective talk page. //Halibutt 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• Decline. I see no substantial dispute warranting the Comittee's involvement here; and the preliminary dispute resolution process has not been properly followed, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Not a matter for the committee. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, per above. Paul August ☎ 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Request to review indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

Initiated by BabyDweezil at 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SlimVirgin [14]
• CBerlet [15]
• Smeelgova [16]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Not sure where this goes, however, this is the community review of the ban here. (not a clerk) Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by BabyDweezil

I am requesting a review and relief from the current indefinite ban I have been put under.

Immediate background I have recently been penalized with a series of blocks, including a one week one, stemming from edit wars that took place in articles related to Scientology. I had made edits on some of these articles, which were rife with POV issues, personal websites as sources etc, though soon came up against intransigent edit warriors and reverters (most notably, Smee (some examples here[[17]]here[[18]]/ [[19]], here[[20]]/ [[21]], here[[22]], here[[23]] (resolved here[[24]] after I posted to BLP board). Although I feel (and some others have agreed) that the penalties against me were less than fair, I accept them, and served the time dutifully. I returned to editing, some of the same pages, some not so controversial, but resolved to press whatever disagreements I had without allowing myself to be provoked into 3RR violations and the like.

From about September 2006 through this January, Chip Berlet, Dennis King and myself were heavily, and often contentiously involved in editing the Fred Newman entry. I began editing that article in September, at a time when it was largely an attack article painting Newman as not only a “cultist” but with intimations of child abuse and other defamatory claims (often cited to personal websites, including Mr King’s). I requested a peer review[[25]] as well as informal arbitration. Chip became involved in the course of my providing balance, and dozens of reliable sources to the article. On his entry, Chip inserted claims from his own work, and basically tried to battle into the article as many variations of the “cult” claims (a claim that is decidedly and demonstrably a minority POV). More can be said on the ensuing months of editing (in which SlimVirgin became involved); from my perspective, I endured months of unrelenting personal attacks from Chip, who regularly referred to me as a “cult apologist,” totalitarian Orwellian sanitizer” and the like. It should be noted that the Fred Newman article currently contains SIXTEEN paragraphs directly referencing Berlet’s claims and THIRTY-ONE paragraphs relating to the charges in general; my contribution has been largely to provide balance to this veritiable flood of largely fringe criticism. This point is notable with respect to Berlet’s most recent charge that somehow my editing of articles such as Fred Newman has left them wildly unbalanced and uncritical.

Current issue: Late in February, Smee created the article Clouds Blur the Rainbow, which was a 1987 report in pamphlet form written by Chip Berlet attacking Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, as “totalitarian cultists.” A few days ago, I began editing that article, which had some serious errors (including characterizing the report as a “book.” Smee immediately began edit warring, and falsely accusing me of inventing quotes from sources I supplied etc. Berlet then entered, accusing me of “incompetent research” (based on my not having the exact sequence of publication dates for this obscure publication in order, including not realizing that one journal version dated Sept/Oct 1987 was not mailed until Nov 1988, and other such arcana). Chip then filed a complaint on the COI noticeboard, calling for my banning, without notifying me (though quietly notifying SlimVirgin), and referring to me (yet again) as an “uncritical supporter” of a “political cult.” The notice and my response is here. Immediately after, SlimVirgin began the proceedings that quickly resulted in my indefinite ban, arrived at in a discussion I was unable to respond to due to the ban, and which featured biased commentary from many (including multiple comments by Smee) which basically amounted to a “piling on” while I was silenced. Oddly, for some unexplained reason, Smee began burying fresh material from the Talk Page of the article directly relevant to my case, and only reluctantly relented after an admin’s intervention.[26] I do regret the intemperate characterization of Berlet as a “paid propagandist” (an overly pejorative reference to his 25 year employment with the politically partisan publishers of his report); the reference to his being a “spook” was actually benign and respectful of his valuable resources from his years as an investigator (despite my complete disagreement with many of his conclusions) that I believe can be useful to these articles and Wikipedia overall, minus the use of them as an extension of his professional partisan political activity (which should be apparent if you read the manner in which I used the phrase, rather than quote it out of context.) I apologize for my strong tone (provoked as I was by the notice, the circumstances of its posting, and the perceived attacks on myself that I was in it). I do not think my response has warranted such a strong penalty, and likewise, I feel that rehashing all the previous issues (for which penaties were served) is unfair. Thank you for your attention. BabyDweezil 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by BabyDweezil to Durova below

I'm additionally of the opinion that the ban itself contradicts [[27]] ("Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.") The decision seems clearly to have been arrived at by the latter, rather than the former. As well, the ban was the hasty result brought about by my response to an abusive posting by Cberlet, for which SlimVirgin effectively first silenced me and set into motion a tribunal which effectively retried me for an issue that had been previously ruled on, and the penalty served, simply based on a single response of mine to that assuredly personally abusive posting by Cberlet. So in effect, a form of double jeopardy has been created, simply from what seems to be a provocative and vindictive joint action by these two individuals. BabyDweezil 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by BabyDweezil to SlimVirgin's statement below

I appreciate SlimVirgin confirming my point about the abject one-sidedness with respect to "personal attacks" she has exhibited. On October 5-6, 2006, I basically pleaded with her to provide me relief from Cberlet's incessant, unrelenting cult baiting and abuse.[[28]]. She never responded, and makes no mention whatsoever below of Cberlet's incessant attacks, but does manage to compile selective quotes and decontextualized half phrases of mine. Additionally, the claim that "BabyD assured me she wouldn't restore it, although she continued to do so, and I had to threaten her with a block before she stopped" is inaccurate; SlimVirgin asked for material to be properly sourced [29], I provided a series of references that were no less obscure than Berlet's pamphlet [30][31][32], but she didn't approve. To characterize it as me defying a promise is simply an inaccurate portrayal of me supposedly acting in bad faith, which I clearly wasn't. BabyDweezil 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

BabyDweezil seems to be a follower of Fred Newman, a Marxist psychotherapist who founded the International Workers Party and New Alliance Party, and who was briefly involved with Lyndon LaRouche. A 1987 report by Chip Berlet referred to Newman's therapeutic methods as "totalitarian cultism" (Berlet, Chip. "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism" from Clouds Blur the Rainbow, Public Eye, Political Research Associates, 1987).

In her support of Newman, BabyD has engaged in violations of WP:ATT and WP:BLP, frequent personal attacks, withering sarcasm, and allegations that other editors are spies and propagandists, or that admins who don't agree with her are corrupt and vindictive. The result is that talk pages she posts on become toxic and practically useless.

I first encountered her on October 8, 2006, when I was asked to look at Fred Newman because of an edit war between BabyD, Chip Berlet, and some others, which seemed to be caused by Baby adding her own opinions. I protected, and asked on talk whether there were BLP issues (material unfair to Newman) because I felt there were a few in the lead and I wasn't happy protecting that version. I outlined my concerns here. BabyD also raised some concerns. The whole discussion is here. I unprotected on October 12 to allow the BLP issues to be fixed. I next encountered BabyD on November 1, 2006 on the same page when she inserted a poorly sourced claim about a living critic of Newman's. I removed the claim and protected the page after she and another account restored it. I unprotected on November 3 when BabyD assured me she wouldn't restore it, although she continued to do so, and I had to threaten her with a block before she stopped. [33] [34]

That was the last direct contact I had with BabyD, but I could see from her interactions with other admins that she continued to cause trouble and was blocked eight times in 15 weeks for 3RR, edit warring, or personal attacks, often responding by accusing admins of acting vindictively against her, for example here. On February 16, BabyD posted a complaint on AN/I about Smeelgova (I can't get this link to go directly to the section; it's item six) to which almost everyone who responded pointed out that it was BabyD herself who was the problem. BabyD responded with personal attacks on all involved, and comments such as "Eeeek! help help!!! He's still stalking me, Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!!" A few days later, Bishonen suggested a one-month block on AN/I, later reduced to one week, noting that BabyD spends her time "skilfully balancing on the very verge of being blocked for edit warring, for personal attacks, for disruption ... I'm very sure that the sum total of his/her impact on wikipedia is negative: that the poisoning of the atmosphere of talkpages, and the disturbance, annoyance, and sheer waste of time of other editors amply outweigh any good edits that may be hiding in some corner where I haven't looked."

Finally, on March 4, I saw this remark of BabyD's accusing one editor of being a "paid propagandist" and "paid partisan," and that editor and another of being "spooks." I decided to block her indefinitely because further warnings and temporary blocks were unlikely to make any difference. Her predictable response was that the block was vindictive and that her "paid propagandist" allegation had been "entirely accurate." I posted the block for review on WP:CN and it was supported by 12 other admins and editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Smee

• Uphold Community Ban - All that I would say has already been said. Even in the above tirade the user continues to violate WP:NPA. For more information, see: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block, and First thread on WP:ANI. The user is incorrect about what he perceives as "piling on." There is no cabal, only a highly disruptive user, and other concerned/frustrated editors/administrators who have given him many chances. Smee 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment by Cyde Weys

The ArbCom cannot get involved here. BabyDweezil has already been banned by the community at large, which is a stronger ban than even the ArbCom can administer. It is not within the ArbCom's jurisdiction to so go against the will of the community on this one. --Cyde Weys 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have jurisdiction. Whether it would be wise to exercise it is another matter. Fred Bauder 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tsunami Butler

Although I think that it is probably true that BabyDweezil is something of a tendentious editor, some of the tactics she describes as being employed by her opponents deserve scrutiny by the ArbCom. I have seen the same disturbing pattern at other articles: Dking and Cberlet attempting to dominate article content through excessive self-citing, then moving to a tactic of speculating about the motives of editors who raise objections (in violation of AGF and NPA,) and finally calling upon SlimVirgin to ban their opponents. At the very least, Dking and Cberlet should be warned against further personal attacks, and SlimVirgin should be asked to recuse herself from using admin powers in content disputes initiated by Dking and Cberlet. She is clearly not acting as a neutral administrator in these situations. --Tsunami Butler 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

It is my understanding that community banned editors may appeal their ban to ArbCom. Indeed, it would be troubling if such appeal were not possible. As one of the three primary coauthors of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline I'll affirm that BabyDweezil's block history is consistent with the profile of a disruptive editor and with past commuity bans. The discussion and closure were consistent with the guideline's present wording. My only involvement with this proposed case was at the ban discussion.

BabyDweezil does raise some interesting points that were not anticipated during the guideline's draft proposal phase. It may be worthwhile to augment either WP:DE or WP:BAN with a requirement to notify the editor in question of a ban discussion and provide that editor (if blocked) with some means of response. Community bans are a developing aspect of Wikipedia - WP:CN itself is a new noticeboard - and it's reasonable to implement some procedural refinements at this stage.

I leave it to the Committee whether to decide BabyDweezil might reasonably have expected any other outcome than sitebanning and whether community ban procedures should be refined by the community or via arbitration. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I am recusing from clerking this case due to a previous disagreement with Cberlet over whether or not to take action against another editor who he was in a dispute with. I would like the Committee to look into Berlet's role in this case. He is named in the article Fred Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several times as a "prominent critic", and his publication Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (about Newman) is cited as a source. Cberlet has extensively edited both articles. Obviously he knows a lot about both subjects. However, when does an obvious conflict of interest such as this cross the line into doing more harm than good? Thatcher131 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Anynobody

I met BabyDweezil while editing the Barbara Schwarz article. I first assumed her strong objections were out of concern for Ms. Schwarz's feelings. I have now been forced to the conclusion that this type of behavior may be more common than I thought. For the consideration of the WP:ARBCOM members and anyone interested I present these links as typical behavior by BabyDweezil on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#What's this weird obsession with Schwarz all about anyway? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Public service announcement for those apparently unable to access a dictionary... Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI I also feel I should say that an investigation of all editors involved is a great idea. While I personally think any incivility on the part of other editors toward BabyDweezil is a response to her attitude of the same, I would very much like to know how you feel the community responded to BabyDweezil. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Per User:BabyDweezil, the user has been "[u]nblocked to file a request for arbitration. Editing is limited to Requests for arbitration and her own pages. Fred Bauder 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)." Newyorkbrad 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recused. Thatcher131 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

• Accept to review conduct of all editors involved. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

2004 Madrid train bombings

Initiated by Southofwatford at 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Southofwatford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Igor21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randroide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Larean01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raystorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Igor21 [[35]]

Randroide [[36]]

Larean01 [[37]]

Raystorm [[38]]

Burgas00 [[39]]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempt to create new neutral main article [[40]]

Attempted RFC [[41]]

Attempted request for mediation 1 [[42]]

Attempted request for mediation 2 [[43]]

Latest RFC [[44]]

Statement by User:Southofwatford

Statement removed because it exceeds the length limit. Southofwatford has been invited to submit a shorter statement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've temporarily restored his statement; I believe his original statement was under the word count, and it was only because he replied to concerns and questions raised by myself and Jpgordon in the acceptance section that the statement's overall length went above 500 words. I don't see any reason to penalize him for responding to our requests for clarification, although I do encourage him to use a shorter statement if he so wishes. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles on the 2004 Madrid train bombings , together with its subsidiary article, Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, have been subject to a lengthy dispute that has been running since July last year. It is difficult to summarise all issues in such a long dispute. The key question in the dispute has been the treatment to be given to conspiracy theories concerning the Madrid bombings. There are also important but secondary issues, most notably the acceptability of sources for information concerning the bombings. Although each user has their own opinions, the main division of opinion is between those who believe that the main article should not be dominated by discussion of these theories, and one user who supports the conspiracy theories and who believes they should be given at least equal weight.

We currently have a situation where the disputed nature of the affected article is not being respected [[45]], [[46]], and since the New Year the dispute has deteriorated sharply as a result of this. A continuation of things as they are at the moment makes the outbreak of an edit war at some point very probable; as we have a situation where one user wants to carry out unilateral and disputed changes, whilst all others involved in the dispute have voluntarily avoided any significant editing of the article while attempts to resolve the dispute are made. In the end such a situation becomes unsustainable as the article continues to shift towards the point of view of a single party to the dispute. Also, articles tangentially related to the subject are being “infected” by insertion of POV material concerning the conspiracy theories in an attempt to circumvent the dispute, leading to multiple references to the same issues appearing in different places.

I have tried to launch two mediation processes and one RfC, none of these have got off the ground. Prior to this there was a significant effort made to find a wording for a neutral main article that would permit the separation of the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues into a separate article; this effort was also unsuccessful despite getting close to a reasonable conclusion. I have reached the conclusion that arbitration is needed to settle the key issues, a point of view endorsed by an administrator who has been witness to the dispute [[47]]. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is simply not useful as a reference on the bombings and associated events. Despite very substantial edits, and the addition of more recent information, it is in many ways in a worse state than the version which existed 12 months ago. Unfortunately, the politicisation of the bombings in Spain has led to the English account of the train bombings being targeted as a political platform.

Let me add a brief comment on the question raised by jpgordon - the key issue at the heart of the dispute is the treatment of the conspiracy theories within the article(s). If it becomes an issue of particular users it is because we have been unable to reach any solution to the dispute - Randroide has resisted any solution which does not give equal (or greater) weight within the article to the conspiracy theories. Southofwatford 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Two requests for mediation got to the point where they could be submitted - there was agreement on bullet points. The first was destroyed by Randroide deciding he preferred to start making contested changes to the article instead. The second got halted at the last minute when Randroide decided he wanted an RFC instead. Southofwatford 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Randroide

This statement has been removed because it exceeds the length limit. Randroide has been invited to submit a shorter statement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote not a single "conspiracy theory" assertion into the article. It´s up to my adversaries to prove the opposite by (nonexistent) diffs.

The controversial part of the contents I introduced has been reflected, in its essentials, by international media in english

A report I wrote about the notability of the supporters of the "Controversies" about the 2004 Madrid bombings (thinking, of course, about WP:WEIGHT).

I ask for User:Gimferrer and User:Dr Debug to be listed as involved parties.

ABOUT 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article as it was 12 months ago:

• Only 3 (THREE) references Vs. 115 (One hundred fifteen) references now.

• Southofwatford
  • New sources inserted into the article by Southofwatford: One [48]
  • Notable edits by Southofwatford: Watch out this edit: Southofwatford reintroduces unsourced blocks of text and typos, deletes sourced text and even restores a nonfunctional image, all in one single edit. Four sources deleted in a single edit

• Randroide (me)

• New sources inserted into the article by Randroide (me): Sixty five sources in forty five edits See here the relevant diffs.
• Sources deleted by Randroide (me): None.
• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None

ABOUT Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article was tagged as "unsourced" in August 2006 [49].

Southofwatford tagged the article as "total dispute" in September 2006 [50], with the purpose (his own words) of providing a light level of protection [51].

In January 2007 I, Randroide, tagged +50 unsourced blocks of text [52][53]

The subsequent discussion with Southofwatford is here: This is the place to see how far you can go with discussion and consensus with Southofwatford, even in a clear-cut issue as the deletion of unsourced text.

In February 2007 I, Randroide, hided the unsourced statements [54]

Southofwatford reintroduced the +50 blocks of unsourced text, thrice [55][56][57]

• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None.

Randroide 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT UserIgor21

• New sources inserted into 2004 Madrid train bombings by Igor21: One [58]
• Sources deleted by Igor21: Four [59]
• Personal attacks by Igor21 (non exhaustive list):
  • I am "mad" [60], I should be blocked forever [61], I have "paranoid threats" (!)[62], I am in a state "of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness" (!?) [63], I am a simulator [64][65], I am part of a "very small group of right winged fanatics" [66], I am a simulator [67], I use "poisonous" (or "toxic" [68]) sources, and Igor21 has nothing to talk with me [69], I am a "fanatic conspirationist" [70]. I cheated Durova [71] and I am a "Filibuster" [72]
  • El Mundo (Spain) -the second general information newspaper in Spain- is a "vomiting source of nauseating lies" and "a libelous t**d" [73], not acceptable as a source [74][75][76][77][78]
• Igor21´s positions on WP:NPOV:

"Open your eyes, Wales is objectivist and takes Rand´s crap as a coherent philosophy. It is sad, but revealing about where he finds his epistemological rubbish about his definition of NPOV" SPANISH

This is the Wikipedia´s foolishness. It is clear that some sources are more credible than others, but NPOV won't allow to remove lying sources and forces to publish them with the others. SPANISH

I don't know whether this is the right place to comment but I'm willing to accept being listed as an involved party. I've edited the document in July - August 2006 and primarily sourced the entire document raising the number of references from 3 to almost 100. I am aware of the endless and fruitless dicussions on the talk pages which resulted in the document still being more or less the same as half a year ago. Dr Debug (Talk) 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RANDROIDE´S Q&A (not statement)

Otheus

Pasted from my talk page:

Randroide, jpgordon has requested evidence that RFC was started...[]...I urge you to respond to jpgordon's request with *1* or *2* appropriate links to the talk archives. Otheus 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ($)

Well, as I understand the expression "starting a RfC", the RfC was never started, because no RfC proposal was ever presented.

About the accusations of me "sabotaging" the RfC, I will let the facts speak:

• We had matured, well thought, texts for the RfC in November 2006 Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_7#RfC_.22distilled.22_section.

• My adversaries withdrew Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_7#Withdrawal_From_The_RFC

• In February 2007 Southofwatford said that the RfC (and "anything else") was "on hold" [79] until the "problem" created by this edit of mine [80] (yes, this was my "Friday crime") was "solved" (whatever he meant).

Dr_Debug

Pasted from my talk page

Sorry about the late reply, but I am willing to accept being listed as involved party. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Dr_Debug write his statement right now?.

Post data: Oh, well, Dr Debug already showed up here...[81]. I think is about time to list him as a participant. Randroide 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 10:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Igor21

The problem is very easy when correctly explained. What we have here is the typical discussion about what to do with conspiracy theories. Everybody except user Randroide want them to be in a sub-article. The key point is that Randroide do not accept a hierarchy of sources so he not accept that what the mainstream world class sources say about the bombing must be stated in the main article, and the minoritary counterintuitive opinions of one local Spanish newspaper -BTW with well know biasing about the subject- must be in a subarticle. So what the comunity is being asked about is if a structure similar to 9/11 (with the conspiracy theories confined in a subarticle) is a good way to go since 1)is what the majority of editors involved wants and 2)is what is rutinary done in other articles that boast associated conspiracy theory. Regarding behaviour, Randroide is an extremely formally polited person but he uses his particular interpretation of wikipedia rules as an arsenal to push his ideas in the main article. This has caused some tensions with other editors who see how Randroide simulates to respect wikipedia rules when in reality is just following the letter and breaking sistematically the esprit of those rules, introducing his minoritary point of view in the main article and accusing respectful editors as Southofwatford of all kinds of misdoings. E.g. during Christmas and ignoring the dispute, Randroide embedded completely the article with conspiracy theories and when Southofwatford tried to fix it, he accuses him of removing "sourced material", purposely ignoring that the source was heavily contradicted by the rest of the media of the planet.--Igor21 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)I have two questions to illustrate the problem. What is worst... a non sourced article that says what the majority of world class media say -so can be easily fixed- or a heavily sourced article with the conspiracionist theories enthronized? What is better... cite once RAND Corporation -that is the facto official database for terrorism and is used unanimously by scholars- or hundred times a local Spanish newspaper whose conclusions are contradicting RAND, police, judges, world media, etc?

Statement by Durova

I recommended arbitration after touching bases with these editors repeatedly over several months. They've given the dispute resolution process several fair tries and the disagreements appear to be intractable. As I understand the dilemma, there's a difference of opinion about the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and the appropriate way to prioritize sources per WP:V and WP:RS. The Committee has handled conspiracy theory disputes before and this one has drawn out long enough that it seemed appropriate to refer the participants here.

It's been difficult for these editors to solicit unbiased outside opinions here because any RFC or 3O respondant soon sees that both a reading knowledge of the Spanish language and a familiarity with the leading newspapers of Spain would be necessary to discuss the dispute at the editors' own level. My own broken Spanish isn't up to that task.

Fortunately their quarrels have remained fairly civilized so I don't anticipate a lot of theatrics if the Committee agrees to hear this case. That situation comes with a downside: I doubt the community would line up behind a disruptive editing ban - even if one of the editors may actually be disruptive. This looks like the sort of problem that would continue to smolder until good editors gave up and quit, so I ask the Committee to give this a hearing. I suspect this would be one of the less time consuming cases on the roster. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer the arbitrators' questions, my attempts to intervene last fall amounted to informal mediation.[82][83][84][85] Durova^Charge! 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Raystorm

I began to edit this article on X-mas unaware of the situation between the different editors (mainly, Randroide on one side, and Southofwatford and Igor21 on the other). I soon ran into conflict with Randroide, but he has always remained civil and polite. Randroide defends a 'conspiracy theory' (called as such by Spanish media and people). This theory was produced by Spanish newspaper 'El Mundo'. The problem is that the article has become a battle of who produces more El Mundo and anti-El Mundo sources, giving excessive importance to what a single newspaper (refuted every step of the way by judiciary and policial sources) says.

Every single assertion El Mundo has made has been refuted, but they keep on 'investigating' and producing shocking new data that invariably points to the basque terrorist group ETA as the sole author of the March 11 attacks. This implies that a fantastical conspiracy by the judiciary, policial and political authorities has taken place to rise the Socialist Government to power (the attack happened a few days before the elections). Not even the opposition party (People's Party of Spain) openly supports El Mundo assertions, and they vaguely state they wanna 'know all the truth' about what happened. The trial of the March 11 attacks has begun in Spain: 90,000 pages of investigation, 29 al-Qaeda related suspects and not a single shred of evidence for what El Mundo (and those who support it by echoing their 'revelations') states. Not a single mention of ETA, except to say there is no connection between them and the attacks. Per WP:Undue Weight, the amount of information currently given in the article based on El Mundo's claims is excessive. It gives the false impression that there are incredible doubts about the investigation in Spain, when that is not the case, per the 90,000 pages investigation and evidence provided. It may be relevant to note that El Mundo's director ran into trouble during the previous Socialist government, and that the few groups that support El Mundo are openly against the socialists.

I suggest placing what the majority of editors consider controversial (i.e, most El Mundo claims, or whatever is decided) into a sub-article that also contains sources that refute those claims, and only make a small mention of those claims on the main article. Raystorm 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Amicus curiae by Otheus

Greetings, all. I initially posted this brief with Flcelloguy, and at his prodding, I have reposted it (with some edits) here.

My involvement: I stumbled across the article in the listing of backlogged articles needing cleanup. This happened right at the cusp of the RfA. Great timing, no? After making some initial edits, I realized the entire article was unworkable and went to the talk page to see if there was *gasp* oh my, this really *is* a contested article. Anyway, I want to help however I can. To that end, I have done some info digging. But please do not take this as definitive. It's more like a "friend of the court" brief.

DR History: The first RfC failed when Southofwatford, frustrated with Randroid's approach, withdrew from the RfC. The two RfM attempts failed before "getting off the ground". The first RfM appears to have been started by Randroide (not 100% sure about that), but Southofwatford stated he would not move forward with an RfM while Randroide continued to make controversial edits. However, that particular point was not so cut-and-dry, since what Southofwatford actually wanted was that Randroid voluntarily revert his redactions to the article, which in Randroid's view would be violating WP policy by restoring unsourced material. The second RfM attempt was started in early February with all sides (including Igor21) trying agree on the "bulletized" issues. After a week, it appeared that a consensus had been reached on what these issues were. On February 16, Randroid "discovered" that RfM guidelines suggest first applying informal resolution methods, leading him to insist on starting the RfC. At this point, Southofwatford proclaimed that only Arbitration could be used to resolve this.

Goals for RfA: I think there are three goals here. One is to avoid an edit war without the ugliness of blocking users, etc. Two is to draw some general guidelines with articles concerning topics such as these, where a "well known event" has an official explanation that is disputed by one or more otherwise reputable sources. A third is whether or not Wikipedia will be 'neutral' regarding the reliable sources, or if some sources are "better" than others (and who can make that determination).

WP:Undue Weight: To me, it is difficult to apply the WP:Undue Weight policy here. First, we are talking about two general viewpoints. Second, the trial has only started, and whatever evidence the government has amassed, we do not know how good the evidence is, nor do we know what evidence has been amassed by the defense, and finally, we don't know what the outcome will be. That is, it's too early too tell. Third, public opinion in this case is most probably defined by what they read in the papers, and if one of the major papers in Spain contradicts supports one of the two viewpoints, the WP:Undue Weight policy would seem to suggest giving "equal time"; that is, at least until the court trial is over. One might interpret the policy to mean that given an opinion expressed one or more papers which have a combined readership of R%, then the opinion should not have more than R% representation in the article. However, herding cats would probably be far easier and less painful.

RfA Ruling Possibilities: My reading of the WP:RfA rules is that the ruling might be of the form:

• User R shall not use source El Mundo in editing articles Y and Z

Or conversely,

• User S (I, etc) shall not revert or redact edits including sources from El Mundo from articles Y and Z

While such a narrow ruling would probably resolve the first goal, and perhaps help create consensus about the second, I think all sides and the WP community in general would benefit from a more insightful and creative ruling. Such a ruling might be guidelines for properly creating a sub-article (which, by the way, has already been done) in a way that is consistent with WP:Content forking, or simply outright sanctioning a POV fork in this instance, and combining it with above rulings so that this issue does not re-occur.

I sincerely hope this (a) correctly summarizes the debate, and (b) can be used by you and other arbitrators on where to take this.

--Otheus 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Comment: I can't really tell from this exactly what we're being asked to arbitrate. Are particular users behaving badly? That we can maybe do something about. I know from poking around this is more than a content dispute, but the case presented does not show that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, more study shows an RFC was never even attempted. The idea was discussed but not actually enacted; from the archives of the talk page, everyone seems to have missed the point completely. An article RFC is not something people agree on; any single user, at any time including right now can go over to WP:RFC/POLITICS (or whichever you think is the best category) and start it up. For example, a single sentence saying "So-and-so article: editors could use some previously uninvolved editors to help determine the weight to be given certain points of view regarding the perpetrators of the bombing". Or something like that; I'm sure many of you are able to craft the sort of neutral-sounding statement that works best at WP:RFC. Otherwise, it really seems like this is an argument that's never gotten past the article's talk page. Unless I'm mistaken about this -- no RFC, no mediation, no request for third opinions -- I'll be rejecting this request as premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Per Otheus' request, I've considered his comment regarding the lack of an RFC. But I guess I'm confused or something. Otheus says, The first RfC failed when Southofwatford, frustrated with Randroid's approach, withdrew from the RfC. How the heck do you "withdraw from an RFC"? An article RFC isn't about people, it's about articles. Point me to where in WP:RFC/whatever the RFC was listed, and where in the article talk page the RFC shows responses from outside parties, or I'll have to stick with my rejection as premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see your reply to Jpgordon's comment, but I need something clarified: was any mediation ever submitted or attempted? Your two diffs show comments stating that you would begin a process of mediation: was an attempt ever started with either the mediation committee (see requests for mediation), mediation cabal, or other informal mediation? Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (your response has been noted and is being considered.) 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. In my search through the debate I see no serious attempt at an RFC or mediation request for this issue. - SimonP 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I'm uncomfortable with sending this away, given the conduct issues. Charles Matthews 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Premature, no RfC. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Talking about opening an RfC is not the same thing as actually opening one. Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. I see this primarily as a content dispute. It is outside our remit to make topic-specific determinations of NPOV and appropriate weight. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Appeal of probation

WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure (WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recourse for unconfirmed credentials

In the depleted uranium case, I presented as evidence several recent articles from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature in support of my position, but my detractors, about six of whom claimed Ph.D. or M.D. credentials but were unwilling to verify those credentials or their identity, were unable to find any recent peer-reviewed reports counter to my positions, or even to even verify my own citations at their library. One or more of them were probably lying about their credentials. Almost any M.D. would, for example, have access to Athens or a similar full text database, or access to a reference librarian who does. Someone with a Ph.D. in metallurgy ought to have access to a library with J Phys Chem and similar journals from the 1960s. I see that Jimbo has proposed a new policy for verification of credentials, and I would like to challenge my detractors to verify their credentials in accordance with Jimbo's proposal. How may I do so? James S. 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-arbitrator, there is no way to verify credentials at this time, and you're missing the point of Jimbo's message. It is not to, for example, force people you don't like to verify their identity or stop editing, nor is it to require such a degree in order to edit. Ral315 » 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said ... that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified."[86] James S. 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This request is inappropriate, since it has nothing to do with the "arbitration process". Paul August ☎ 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a very serious problem with the arbitration process. What is and isn't proper behavior (and responsible editing) often depends very much on the facts, and this is particularly true when editors make health claims about toxins. What if Dow Chemical wanted to get a half-dozen people to claim advanced degrees and go to work on Agent Orange, scrubbing it of peer-reviewed scientific literature as has been happening on the depleted uranium article? Shouldn't it be advisable and within the process for the arbitrators or parties to request proof of the advanced and medical degrees claimed, especially, as happened in the depleted uranium, when those degrees were assumed by the arbitrators to be real with no supporting evidence or even knowledge of the identities of those claiming the credentials? James S. 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of probation

In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.

I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. —phh (^t/_c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note An Innocent Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Might want to log onto that account and make a diff saying that you and that account are the same for proof. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Voila! --An Innocent Man 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart[87] and sometimes not[88]. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP[89]. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al.[90][91][92] Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the Bogdanov Affair

Yes, the thorn-in-the-side returns! Three sock puppets — Bester (talk · contribs), Stern (talk · contribs) and Tron (talk · contribs) — have in the last three days vandalized the Bogdanov Affair article, subject of a 2005 ArbCom ruling. All of their accounts are older, in contrast to the one-shot sockpuppet accounts created to muck with that article earlier, but they have been inactive for a long time (Bester since 3 July 2005, Stern since 2 August 2006 and Tron since 26 February 2004). Edit mannerisms (diff, [93]) are similar or identical to the sockpuppets encountered last year (such as these).

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) and I both suspect that these may be compromised accounts. In that light, I'd like to request an emendation of the enforcement decision which currently states the following:

New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Is it possible to amend this statement so that it also applies to user accounts which have been inactive a significant length of time (say, greater than six months) and which may be compromised, particularly if they exhibit the same editing behavior as known offenders? These are, I should add, very predictable puppets. Anville 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to add: Sam Blanning has created a long-term abuse entry for this matter, which see. Anville 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been operating under the assumption that previous rulings, e.g. RFAR/Iasson: One user or several? (a ruling repeated in other cases which I don't remember offhand), allow for the blocking of such compromised accounts, but a change to the wording of the specific case would be appreciated. Only place I disagree with Anville is that I don't think it would be a good idea to include a time limit ("greater than six months") in the amended ruling. The length of time isn't the giveaway, it's the fact that these accounts first display none of the characteristics, then they fall dormant, then they suddenly spring up as Bogdasocks. I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the fact that the account had been compromised would be as obvious as in the case of Bester, but it only fell dormant five months ago.

Arbcom rulings are generally slow to change and risky to ignore, so the Arbcom shouldn't, in my opinion, seek to set out exactly how administrators may act to fight a specific abuser once they've ruled that they need to be dealt with - whether a particular account has been compromised should be left up to the judgement of administrators and the community in general on a case-by-case basis. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Sam Blanning's comments and upon further reflection, I've struck out the "six months" part of my remark. Anville 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on safe ground blocking the accounts as socks. I don't believe it's necessary to formally change the remedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)