Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 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: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban	none	none	12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	none	(orig. case)	13 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

ScienceApologist

Initiated by Asmodeus 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 'at 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

User:Asmodeus

User:ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist has been made aware of this request through a notice on his talk page. [0; 1]

Attempts to resolve the dispute were made on ScienceApologist's talk page. [2,3,4] When, against the advice of an administrator [5] he refused my request 6, I posted a notice to WP:PAIN and WP:ANI. [7,8] Administrators Shell Kinney, Daniel Bryant, and Thatcher131 all recommended arbitration. [9,10,11] It should also be noted that when ArbCom member Fred Bauder was queried on whether these issues would be addressed in the nearly-complete "Pseudoscience" RfAr, he responded negatively; hence, they would seem to require a new RfAr.

ScienceApologist's problematic behavior in this case, which goes back several months, largely mirrors that of two other (now-departed) users. Although dispute resolution was initiated in those cases, the users in question left before anything could be resolved. ScienceApologist is well aware of those efforts and has had ample opportunity to amelioratively modify his own behavior. That he has not done so, and shows no desire to do so, implies that nothing short of arbitration will permit a resolution. Furthermore, it is not fair to prolong his current violation of WP:HARRASSMENT at my expense.

Summary

ScienceApologist is speculating on my personal identity in violation of WP:HARASSMENT. [12] In addition, ScienceApologist has a history of disruptive behavior with respect to the work and biography of Christopher Michael Langan [13,14], whom he has publicly accused me of being in real life. In the context of this accusation, ScienceApologist has serially violated WP:NPA, WP:LIVING, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:NPOV while falsely accusing me of violating WP:AUTO (as loyally seconded by some of his allies). In fact, I have edited the Langan bio just twice, once to correct a misspelling and once to remove irrelevant information posted by ScienceApologist.

Statement by Asmodeus 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Divulging personal information on Asmodeus

ScienceApologist has publicly speculated on and attempted to reveal my personal identity, and when asked to desist, claimed that since my identity is relevant to possible violations of WP:AUTO, he was within his rights. However, the personal identity of any particular Wikipedian is off the table, the sole exception being somebody with a verified history of non-NPOV edits to Wikipedia articles. I have no such history. Hence, my personal identity is not a legitimate issue, and speculations and accusations regarding it violate WP:HARASSMENT and WP:NPA.

Such behavior is all the more reprehensible when it threatens to expose a user to attack and/or harassment on philosophical grounds. I have been subject to attack by ID critics at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist has been at pains to falsely portray a certain bio subject as an ID theorist, and his theory as a strain of ID theory, repeatedly inserting extraneous information on a certain affiliation into this person's biography for that purpose and ultimately accusing me of being that person IRL. Obviously, ScienceApologist has no business exposing me, or the bio subject in question, to harassment or other abuse, or using Wikipedia to focus undesired attention upon us.

Improperly editing Christopher Michael Langan

ScienceApologist has an ongoing history of disruptive editing behavior with respect to the biography of Christopher Michael Langan. [18,19] WP:NPA specifies that personal attacks include "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" (see the fourth bullet here). That this is ScienceApologist's purpose is clearly implied not only by his well-established negative attitude toward Langan and his work, but by his insistence on inserting and reinserting this particular piece of information into Langan's biography, to which it is extraneous and where it does not in fact belong.

That is, while it is acceptable to report on a biography subject's affiliations, specific information on any affiliated group or organization is either irrelevant, or relevant only insofar as it might influence the perception of the subject and/or his or her ideas. If irrelevant, then it does not belong in the article; if relevant, then it is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, and again does not belong in the article. Because ScienceApologist is clearly attempting to expose Mr. Langan to opprobrium through one of his affiliations, this is also in violation of WP:LIVING.

Improperly editing the CTMU article

ScienceApologist disruptively edited the CTMU article when it existed. See this evidence in the "Pseudoscience" RfAr, which contains a helpful narrative and numerous supporting diffs. After encountering editorial resistance to his sweeping changes, he participated in its deletion, which was sought on the alleged grounds that it and its topic were "pseudoscience". In fact, the article and its topic were explicitly classified as philosophy. [For a concise account of the entire CTMU affair, see my response to this bogus RfC filed in retaliation to my request that another user desist in his personal attacks. Also see the outside view of Tim Smith, who authored the CTMU article (and did a clear and accurate job of it).]

I've shortened this statement by adminstrative request. Unfortunately, the links may no longer be numbered correctly, and I don't have time to change them right now. I'll make corrections and additions as time permits. Meanwhile, the previous version of my statement, and its missing links, remain in the page history. Thank you, Asmodeus 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statment by (mainly uninvolved) JoshuaZ

There doesn't seem to me to be any case here for the ArbCom to look at. The main claim is simply that SA realized who an editor was and that that editor was not editing within WP:AUTO guidelines. That editor has then complained because SA pointed it out. We have a large body of prior precedent to show that pointing out WP:AUTO violations is acceptable. One example is was the Agapetos_Angel case where the ArbCom found no issue with editors pointing to evidence that the Anon and AAwere Jonathan Sarfati and his wife. Furthermore, no formal dispute resolution has been tried prior to arbitration. I therefore urge the ArbCom to reject this request. JoshuaZ 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FeloniousMonk

Asmodeus' problems here would simply not exist were he to clarify his relationship to the subject mentioned above as others have asked. As Asmodeus mentions above, Byrgenwulf and Hillman prior to ScienceApologist suspected he was violating WP:COI and WP:AUTO and sought clarification from him, which appears justified. Each time editors have sought such clarification from him, it appears Asmodeus has dodged the question by attacking those doing the asking. So doing inflames the situation by worsening the appearance that he is attempting to side-step WP:COI and WP:AUTO by refusing to clarify a possible personal tie to the subject.

This can and should be settled outside of the RFAR venue. If Asmodeus does not want to clarify his relationship and is indeed related to the topic, he need not reveal his personal identity but should merely limit his participation to those articles' talk pages per policy. This would be a great demonstration of goodwill and lessen the concerns of others to the point where they would eventually evaporate. If he is not related to the topic RFCU should be able to help him out without revealing his identity with no further action necessary since his response to the question is largely the cause of these difficulties. Either way clarification is what is needed, not another disruptive pseudoscience RFAR. FeloniousMonk 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Requested Asmodeus shorten his introduction summary and statement. [1] --FloNight 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Waldorf education and related articles

Initiated by Hgilbert at 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hgilbert (talk · contribs)
• Wonderactivist (talk · contribs)
• Pete K (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• Thebee (talk · contribs)
• DianaW (talk · contribs)
• Fergie (talk · contribs)
• Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)
• Vindheim (talk · contribs)
• Trueblood (talk · contribs)
• Lumos3 (talk · contribs)
• Venado (talk · contribs)

All parties are aware of the request through notices on their User talk pages

Articles at issue

• Rudolf Steiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Waldorf education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anthroposophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PLANS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dan Dugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous efforts to resolve

Mediation has been tried: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rudolf_Steiner.

• Eight editors initially agreed, all but two cited in the request for mediation. User:Pete K and User:DianaW refused mediation.
• At issue was the language used in the mediation request, which was provocative and skirted the real issues essentially derailing the process from the start. Discussion of the language of the mediation request spanned six days and is detailed here.
• On the sixth day of the week given for agreement, one of the two disagreeing users replaced the conditions for mediation with a completely new list - without agreeing to mediation on the new list; two editors then withdrew their previous agreement.
• The mediation was accepted (despite not having the unanimous agreement of the editors) but nothing further happened.

Requests for comments have been tried: see

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex
  • No response
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy
  • No response

Brief summary of situation

Editing of a number of related articles (Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity) is in a log-jam due to edit conflicts, revert wars, accusations of POV-pushing, and personal attacks on talk pages.

Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article.

Statement by Hgilbert

There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them. Attempts to achieve an objective point of view in the article have been stymied, in part due to extremists on both sides seeking to put in what they see as "truth" and remove anything contrary to their POV. (Examples:Talk:Waldorf_education#Weasel_words, [2])

There is also a failure of good faith (see here, here and here, where even opening this request for arbitration (as suggested by several administrators over several months) stimulates accusations).

The refusal by the two editors most antagonistic to the subjects of these articles, User:Pete K and User:DianaW, to enter mediation has blocked further progress along these lines. The former has been repeatedly warned about his incivility; the latter has also had egregious violations ([3], [4]). The incivility has dropped off considerably in the last weeks, it should be noted. User:Thebee has also been incivil on occasion.

Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them.

The same two parties, Pete K and DianaW, have suggested that certain themes, such as the actual life of Rudolf Steiner, should not be given due weight (see Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Archive_2#Proportion_and_subarticle in order to make room for critical questioning exposing the "reality" of his views. They have also claimed that anyone involved in anthroposophy or Waldorf education is by nature too biased to be cited or to be an editor, whereas their own and outside critics' views are unbiased.

The polarization visible elsewhere in the articles comes to a crux over the delicate subject of Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, see Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Steiner's views were complex, as he came out strongly against racism and anti-Semitism but made comments about individual races and ethnic groups that are offensive or at least questionable to many modern sensibilities. This article is itself currently recommended for deletion as it is in many respects a quote farm.

I feel that these articles need to be verifiable and NPOV. The term "brochure language" has been unhelpful, as it tends to be used to refer to anything one point of view wishes to strip away from the article; especially anything that might cast the subject in a positive light, even if this is relevant and verifiable information.

The articles should mention any controversy over the subjects, as also their positive reception, but these themes should not dominate over an exposition of the actual subjects themselves. The goals, model of child development, teaching methods and curriculum should be the dominant focus of an article on Waldorf education; Steiner's life, work and philosophical development should be the dominant focus of an article on Steiner; the ideas, institutions and historical development of anthroposophy should be the dominant focus of an article on anthroposophy. Hgilbert 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Fergie

The Waldorf education system, Rudolf Steiner, and Anthroposophy are fraught with contradiction and controversy, and it is this which is interesting to the casual reader.

There has been a concerted effort by Hgilbert, TheBee and others with a vested interest in Waldorf education to airbrush over various nasty (and therefore interesting) details, and clog up the articles with paragraphs of what can only be descibed as bland 'brochure material'.

The editors in the other camp (PeteK, DianaW, et al), have rightly added balance to the article, much to the annoyance of the aforementioned extreme pro-waldorf group. I can see that this has created confrontation, but I cannot say that any party has acted particularly unreasonably.

My own feeling is that the extreme pro-waldorf group have been dragged into line to some extent, and at this point in time the article is not quite so outrageously unwikipedian as it was.

The editors have rightly been inclusionist in their editing of the article, so rather than remove text, counterbalancing point of view has been inserted. This has lead to the article becoming rather 'fluffy' and uninteresting for the average visitor.--Fergie 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by venado

I have not been a part of this except in a few cases, minor changes. I was curious why there was all the changes back and forth, and nasty fighting in the articles, which turns out to involve the same editors, and why there was so much fingerpointing, and worse, character assassination. It seems like a lot of overcorrecting too. If something is POV, somebody else corrects it by putting the opposite. But it's just a POV the opposite direction which is no better and a lot of times worse. Venado 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Pete K

I don't think there is enough room here to describe everything that has been going on in the several articles that have been mentioned (and at least one that has been left out of the list - PLANS) so I'll try to confine my comments to the Waldorf Education article itself. The arbitration should cover this single article because the problem here (the direct conflict-of-interest of at least one of the editors of the Waldorf article) may not apply to the other articles.

I arrived here to find an article about Waldorf education that was literally like reading a Waldorf school brochure. A project team was developed. At first, I joined the project in good faith until I started reading comments in the project outline like "8 Criticism and debate - The criticisms people make of the system (presented in a clear and non-hysterical fashion)" [5]. As I didn't think criticism of Waldorf was generally presented in a "hysterical" fashion, I started looking through the list of participants, I started to realize that many of them were heavily invested in Waldorf. I decided there would not be a possibility for an unbiased article by a group of Waldorf people.

Most heavily invested in Waldorf is HGilbert, who is, in fact, a Waldorf teacher. As a Waldorf teacher, he directly benefits as Waldorf benefits - the more demand there is for Waldorf education, the more in demand Waldorf teachers are. Mr. Gilbert has been responsible for a good deal of the brochure language in the article, and has defended it tooth-and-nail against removal. This is a conflict-of-interest. He is essentially being paid (indirectly) to edit the same articles I am editing for free. Furthermore, Mr. Gilbert, himself, has produced a book called "At the Source: the Incarnation of the Child and the Development of a Modern Pedagogy" published by AWSNA press (Association of Waldorf Schools in North America) - and he has written a Wikipedia article promoting his own book in the reference section.

Another problem here is that references to the language that touts Waldorf methods is citable most often in Waldorf or Anthroposophical literature - i.e. Waldorf brochures are being referenced to justify the brochure language in the article. So if a Waldorf brochure says "All Waldorf students learn to speak two foreign languages" - it ends up in the article - and it is, technically, properly referenced. The fact that all Waldorf students DON'T learn how to speak two foreign languages becomes difficult to defend since nobody has bothered to publish this fact (why would they?). So we end up with weasel words saying "some Waldorf students learn to speak two foreign languages" or "many children are reading by the age 8" - and for most readers at that point, it’s... well... "big deal". So, Mr. Gilbert has decided that the Waldorf article should talk about "goals" - what the school "tries" to achieve... wording like "educate the whole child" creeps into the article when we start describing the "goals" of the educational system. It is clear that to a Waldorf teacher, or to many of the Waldorf supporters who are invested in Waldorf, an article describing what actually happens in Waldorf wouldn't describe their "impressions" of the schools. They want this article to make Waldorf sound like more than it actually is because a healthy, positive article about Waldorf means more people will be interested in Waldorf schools. If you're a Waldorf teacher or run a Waldorf home school, that's good news. But even if you are just an Anthroposophist, Waldorf schools are great places for people to learn about your religion - so lots of Waldorf schools means lots of people contacting and learning about Anthroposophy. That's why the brochure language keeps proliferating in the Waldorf Education article. It's not only motivated by financial reasons, it's motivated by reason of spreading "the word" of Steiner. Pete K 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by {DianaW}

This is not a full statement as it's not really even clear to me what's being "arbitrated" now, but a brief reply re: previous mediation attempt. The notion that Pete or I somehow ruined their effort is nonsense. We insisted on mediating real issues not invented or craftily worded ones, like "whether it's okay to say anything positive about Steiner," as if we could or would justify simply taking out anything positive about Steiner. It was like arguing with kids in junior high. In addition, many of the issues they wanted to "mediate" were simply things that are basic wikipedia policies and aren't negotiable, like using acceptable sources. Additionally, they wanted any source from someone "critical" labeled with some kind of big sign "This person is critical." It never got anywhere because their understanding of the issues was basically juvenile. Similarly this nonsense about removing biographical material readily demonstrates the almost pathological devotion they feel to Steiner as a guru. I merely suggested shortening the biographical section to an appropriate length and removing fluffy silly stuff only of interest to his groupies, stuff that was likely to appear truly goofy to ordinary readers of an encyclopedia. Admittedly I was a little satirical about it, but the thing just read ridiculously; it was comical, and I actually feel Steiner deserves the respect of being portrayed as he was - nobody else is going to believe he practically walked on water anyway, so why not write a *real* encyclopedia article on him? Their problem is simply that they can't STAND to see Steiner portrayed as less than a grand master and benefactor of humanity. You'd think he was Nelson Mandela. I don't see this new attempt as much more promising, consider once again it's hopelessly vague as to what exactly someone is aiming to "arbitrate."DianaW 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I really love the "egregious violations" I'm accused of above. I urge people to check out my egregious violations!DianaW 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Three of the four articles I listed above have been protected in the last month due to edit warring and/or are under protection currently. Thatcher131 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

1. Accept to look at all issues. Charles Matthews 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Accept. - SimonP 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [6]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick

It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.

While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).

--Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? --Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The complaint is filed mostly against Karl not you. Though, the short timespan for an inactive wikipedian such as yourself to notice it is of course also curious. Your last edit was on 3 July...

--Cat out 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: is it really so remarkable that someone might login to read (including checking one's own talk page and watchlist) even when not editing for a while? I'd think it as normal as checking one's email inbox even when not sending email for a while. Asking as a relative newbie, passing by. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:35, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

He ONLY had 3 edits prior to the incident. Reverting my edit to his userpage was his 4th edit. Unlike a wikipedia, on commons there really is nothing to read. I seriously doubt he was just browsing images in the time being... Needless to say he was convicted of stalking me twice in the past as linked above.

However, my complaint is for a different reason. The remarkable thing is that an uninvolved and also relatively inactive party (User:Igiveup) filing the complaint practically behalf of Moby and Him being another convicted stalker. His complaint just one hour and 30 minutes after my edit - that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

--Cat out 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my newbie question; I appreciate it. Looking at the edit history with your seven edits to his user page, I see you'd not only added a sockpuppet warning but blanked out the prior content of that page (until the revert); I just don't see why. I also don't see how his complaining about what you did to his user page makes him a harasser. As to his only making four edits (the 4th being his revert), I see the first two were creating his user page and the picture for it, and the third was a vote opposing your promotion. After that, doing what you did to his user page could be interpreted as a reprisal — please notice, I'm not saying it was, I'm just pointing out the risk inherent in making that kind of edit in that situation. Under the circumstances, are you sure you want to follow up that interaction by bringing accusations here, given the risk of reinforcing that interpretation? I'm certainly not on ArbCom, it's just another question from a newbie. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:36, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick, it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek). Who has a history of personal attacks and harassment here on en.wiki.

I am really tired of dealing with Davenbelle/Moby Dick and Stereotek/Karl Meier/Igiveup. They had been stalking me with intervals (overall non-stop) for nearly two years now.

If harassment is indeed prohibited behavior why am I still dealing with it?

--Cat out 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick".... In that case, you might want to strike through some text above, e.g. "It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick)"....

..."it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek)." Whose "harassment", according to the link you provide, consists of filing a complaint — about your twice blanking out Moby's user page, and on the second occasion using your brand-new Commons admin power to protect the blanking against Moby's restore. So anyone who refers to that as abuse of power is "harassing" you? Is it also "harassment" for anyone else to point to the same edit history and draw the same conclusion?

Cool Cat, you initiated the interaction there, carried your grudge from Wikipedia to Commons, and when you were simply and formally called on it, you reported that back to Wikipedia as "harassment" against you, to get those who complained of your harassment blocked. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:30, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from commons for "exhaust[ing] the patience of the community" ^{link. --Cat out 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}

I see the actual reason given is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others". How curious.   What threats? Specifically? Is there a quote, a cite, a diff, anything to substantiate exactly what threats were made, when or where? "Making threats" is a crime. Alleging that is a very serious accusation. And it is false. Does NPA not apply on Commons? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:02, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2

Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [7] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [8]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my case here: [9] & [10]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [11]. Fantastic! SSS108 ^talk-email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision. That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source. I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (^t/_c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
2. PHenry and JohnnyBGood both left the project. That doesn't demonstrate good behavior, even though they may have empty block logs. Rschen does have a block for violation. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   To expand, I'm not confident that the probation isn't still helping. The time doesn't seem right. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTCP)

3. concur with Morven ➥the Epopt 14:24, 18 November 2006 :# (UTC)
4. Charles Matthews 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

SPUI

With respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation based on block log SPUI's block log and the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI.._again SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While there are a number of blocks, I only count 3 related to his probation conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with both Matt and Dmcdevit. - SimonP 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
3. concur with Dmcdevit: the community can do it ➥the Epopt 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Charles Matthews 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. There is already a provision in our original decision for a longer term block in the case of incorrigibility. "After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The community is free to impose bans before then, of course, but I don't see the need for our intervention. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives

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