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

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0

[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

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

Current requests

Derek Smart

Initiated by ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} at 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kerr avon (talk · contribs)
• Steel359 (talk · contribs)
• WarHawkSP (talk · contribs)
• Mael-Num (talk · contribs)
• Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs)
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs)
• Jeffness (talk · contribs)
• Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) (cannot notify, as the user's talk page is fully protected)

Possibly Derek Smart, the subject of the article

• Numerous anonymous IP addresses.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

article page, Jeffness, WarhawkSP, Steel359, Kerr avon, Mael-Num, Hipocrite,Nanedesuka. Supreme Cmdr cannot be notified as his user page is protected, and he is banned from the article. Bill Huffman

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

further discussion regarding WarHawkSP, read this first!, AN/I discussion part 2, RFC filed against Kerr_avon

Informal mediation has failed. Page Protection has failed. Talk page discussion has failed. Community bans of the malicious users have seemed to have failed. 3RR blocks have failed. Discussion on WP:AN/I has stalled. BLP Noticeboard suggested the case be brought here.

Statement by Swatjester

Summary: This article has been involved in an edit war back and forth for some time now. Derek Smart is a controversial figure, and the edit wars are centering around the inclusion or removal of certain criticisms of Smart, in some cases from cited sources. Relevent policies in question are WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP. There have been a number of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts on the article. The article was recently protected to stop the edit warring. Within hours of the unprotection, the article was in the midst of a revert war once again. Threats of "libel" have been made on the talk page.

It has been repeatedly suggested on WP:AN/I and the BLP Noticeboard that this case be brought to arbitration.

I am as close to an uninvolved user as I can be on this article, though I will admit in the interest of full disclosure I have reverted I believe twice on the article. I have been trying to mediate the edit warring and constant reversions on this article. However, it seems that there is no other solution than ArbCom at this point. Something very strange is going on here: there are multiple single purpose accounts, IP's making the same edits, many of which come from the same geographic location as Smart. Smart has made it clear on his personal forums that he is aware of the dispute over his page and has remarked with interest to "wiki jihad".

The crux of the dispute appears to be over the inclusion of several edits, most of them sourced, that are highly critical of Smart. The edits come from the Opposable Thumbs column of Ars Technica, as well as the Daily Victim comic, and a usenet posting in which Smart has verifiably commented. There is a group that opposes the edits and continually reverts them, and a group that wants them in and continually reverts them. Most users that I have seen that are on "good behavior", i.e. no block history, knowledge of policy, not vandals etc., are of the opinion that the edits are relevant and should be included. However, the editors who do not wish to see these edits included have made it very clear that they will not under any circumstances allow them to be included.

Several instances of extreme incivility and personal attacks have accompanied these edits, in summaries and in edit text. Several editors have violated 3RR on this, in some cases over 6 reverts.

There also appears to be some sort of outside organization coming from Smart's forums, as well as sockpuppets, and IP editing to get around the 3RR. Further, there seems to be an issue with Smart himself possibly editing the article: The IP addresses resolve to Ft. Lauderdale, where Smart's offices are located, and checkuser requests on the subject have turned up inconclusive, but notably not rejecting the theory.

One user, Supreme Cmdr, has already been banned from editing the article.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case and investigate further, there is something severely wrong with this edit war.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Yamla

I am an uninvolved third party. To the best of my knowledge, I had never even read this article until today and certainly have no memory of ever having edited it. However, with more than 25,000 edits, I may have done. I am here as an outsider.

Note that Derek Smart has been the subject of numerous flame wars over the course of months and years. I believe initially usenet was the focus of these flame wars. This has been going back a good ten years or so. I believe it accurate to state that Smart himself would admit to being an active participant in these flame wars.

From my knowledge of the situation, Swatjester's summary thus far is accurate and I concur that a request for arbitration is a good idea at this point. Specifically, however, I want to emphasize that there is no direct evidence that Smart himself has participated, either directly or via a meatpuppet, in editing this article. However, this is at the very least possible. It is worth considering whether or not Smart should be allowed to edit this article or others about his products. I believe this to be inappropriate as he is not a neutral third party. --Yamla 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bill Huffman

There's little doubt in my mind that User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP are indeed Mr. Smart. I've probably read almost all of Mr. Smart's approximately 7,000 posts made in the Usenet flame war. He has a rather unique abrasive haughty writing style that I'm quite familar with. Based on that familarity alone I'm convinced that Mr. Smart is violating WP:AUTO. I don't believe that he will ever allow the Derek Smart article to contain anything that he perceives as criticism. This is based on my estimation of Mr. Smart as well as direct statements made by Supreme_Cmdr for example here's a diff. Here's the diff of the link description that Supreme_Cmdr considers WP:NPOV and the description that he says violates WP:NPOV.

Both User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP have multiple violations of WP:3RR. Both accounts are apparently WP:SPA. I suggest that part of the finding for the arbitration should be that these accounts are in violation of WP:SOCK or at least WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. If the accounts were banned from editing the Derek Smart article I believe that it will slow done the disruption but not eliminate it. This belief is supported by the fact that whenever both Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP were blocked from editting anon's popped up that picked up in the edit war where the WP:SPA accounts had left off. It is also based on Mr. Smart's declaration of Jihad against WP and statements on WP by Supreme_Cmdr that he will never allow the article to stand if he disagrees with it. I believe the only way the edit war will be completely stopped is if the article is deleted altogether (a solution that I believe is reasonable) or allow Mr. Smart to write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article (a solution that I believe is unreasonable). Regards, Bill Huffman 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jeffness

I became involved in the Derek Smart article what seems like a few months ago, but is really only 3 weeks, after stumbling upon it via a friend. I started and completed a rewrite of the article that involved substantial changes, new and better citations and overall quality enhancements. Coming into it, I knew nothing about the article's subject and feel that puts me in a good position as an editor of the obviously controversial article. My experience over the last few weeks with this article has been rather harrowing. I knew what I was stepping into, but I never thought it would be this bad. In my opinion, the article is subject of an organized campaign to cleanse the article of properly cited information that is critical of the subject by none other than the subject of the article himself, thereby inciting WP:Auto violations. Certain users, namely user:WarHawkSP and User:Supreme_Cmdr as well as some random IP addresses that popped up when those 2 users were banned, all share the same writing style although sockpuppet checks have come back inconclusive. It should be noted that internet veterans like Smart are privy to things like Onion routing (see Tor_(anonymity_network)) and HTTP proxies that can obfuscate their real location on the internet, so it will never be conclusive. However, ample circumstantial evidence has been amassed to throw these users, their actions and edits, into question at the very least. They have been disruptive, revert warring, disagreeable and have a propensity to wikilawyer everything to death in the hopes we would just go away. This article is in dire straights and needs arbitration from above to resolve these issues.--Jeff 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nandesuka

I concur with Swatjester's summary. To it I would simply add that the issue is not the content of the Derek Smart article but rather the behavior of the partes involved. The ArbCom should accept this case to put an end to what can only be described as abjectly unrepentant and incorrigible edit warring, sockpuppeting, and wikilawyering. Nandesuka 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Steel359

I'm not all that familliar with the disputed content, only that there's some negative information that Supreme Cmdr (and others) object to. I'm really just involved in this dispute as an administrator who has protected the article a few times and blocked a couple of users for edit warring. In the relatively short time I've been involved, there's been several ANI threads and an RfC, and I've found another RfC from August. This desperately needs an ArbCom ruling to end the dispute.

I consider User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP (including his old account User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num to be the same person. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether they're Derek Smart himself, but it would explain why all three have spent their entire Wiki-career removing negative information from the article. -- Steel 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Cmdr

I agree, in part, with SwatJester's summary except to add the following:

• I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor do I know who they. I am being accused of this by the same editors who seek to inject [WP:BLP] violating derogatory material into the Wiki and without opposition. Anyone who opposes, is accused of being a sock puppet. I would be willing to provide a member of the ArbCom committee my personal information, under strict confidentiality, so that they can verify this. It is my hope that WarHawkSP and the others being accused of this, will do the same.

• I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases. If he were involved in that page, given his history, he would either have been perma-banned or had the page deleted. These people don't know him well enough to make this call. The exception being Bill Huffman who has stalked him incessantly for going on ten years now. So as not to repeat what has already been posted about this Huffman person, I urge you to please read the summary poster here in the WP:BLP noticeboard.

• The problem with the article is that editors like Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman and their ilk want to re-write history and inject policy violating material into the Wiki. These include the following.

• Bill Huffman is a 'known net stalker of Derek Smart and has been so for almost ten years, starting from Usenet. He has a web page in which he alone makes claims about Derek Smart. Claims which are not factual, not cited by any news source on this planet and are based on one man's opinion. His cohorts have tried in vein and failed repeatedly to have his website added to the Wiki article. This is one of the issues that him, Kerr Avon and some others are still to this day trying to push. Knowing fully well that it violates WP:RS and WP:BLP specifically. Then they tried to pass through WP:EL. That effort too failed and sparked further WP:BLP discussions. The current consensus is that the site cannot be linked to nor quoted in the article. Period. But the ludicrousness of it all continued no less. The hilary reached new heights when they tried again - and failed - to reach a consensus (which they assumed would trump policy) on adding the link. But that didn't stop them from trying again and again.

Thats when Bill started along a new path. Claiming that since he wasn't editing the article - only the talk page - that he wasn't influencing anything. So the argument continues and continues despite the fact that apart from consensus, policy clearly prohibits Usenet posts. Lets not even go into the strict WP:BLP guidelines which they are conveniently ignoring.

• The problem is not with commentary critical of Smart, but rather about what commentary is allowed under policy and WP:BLP guidelines. Nobody is calling Smart an angel. But this is an encylopedia, not a debate about giving out the Nobel peace prize or a confirmation for office hearing. Those who are on one side, want to push pov by adding derogatory (e.g. this comment by Ben on his blog, not to mention unsourced material (e.g. this urban legend about a Coke machine) into the Wiki.

• Most old and new editors have either left or have been blocked. The new editors, e.g Jeffness, who come along and don't even bother to read through the history, throw in their two cents monkey wrench into the mix. And before you know it, we're back at square one. Then when they start making reverts without even so much as reading what they are reverting, you end up with 3RR blocks and the like.

• I have been blocked several times for reverting this improper material. The other side then point to my blocks as proof that I have been disruptive, when in fact the post history proves otherwise. Recently WarHawkWP was blocked for reverting. By the time his block expired, the two items he was blocked for, were in the end not allowed into the article anyway. Several editors have seen this behavior on Wiki and not just on this page. To the extent that an ex-admin made this comment on another editor's page. That was before he was accused of being a sock puppet. Something that the opposing side couldn't seem to make up their mind about.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

---

Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport

Initiated by thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} at 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

(Note: First RFAR. Trying to be as careful as possible to not make mistakes, though I'm only human.)

• Thadius856 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jpatokal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dbinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wangi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)
• Hunterd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Huaiwei — Jpatokal — Dbinder — Wangi — Chacor — Hunterd

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. Avoidance of removal or reversion without discussion and consensus.
2. Taking a break from improvement of disputed article.
3. Extremely lengthy discussion at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport.
4. Solicitation of outside opinions from Peer Review [1], Wikipedia talk:Lead section and WikiProject Airports Peer Review [2].
5. Mediation Cabal case (closed).

Statement by Thadius856

Upon first seeing the Singapore Changi Airport article, I was struck by now ugly the lead paragraphs looked. While attempting to improve said article through GA-status, I found that the lead needed trimming due to slow creep. The first sentence in particular contained a slew of alternate names, including: Chinese, Malay, Tamil, pinyin [sic] and two names in English. As they were already present in the infobox, they were repetitive in nature and detracting from the readability of the opening sentence in its then-present form.[3] The MoS on lead paragraphs dictated they be removed, as "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction" and Wikipedia is WP:NOT "an indiscriminate source of information".

However, I didn't remove them from the lead myself as it would have been reckless and acting unilaterally. Instead, I joined the discussion on the talk page.[4] User:Huaiwei appeared extremely intent on keeping all the names in the lead, even to the point of posting personal attacks [5], having to be reminded to assume good faith [6] and myself having to ask him to maintain civility.[7] I eventually opened a MedCab case to help reach a consensus. Though Huaiwei was notified[8] and a notice placed on the article's talk page[9], he never participated in the mediation. A reminder was left on the article's talk page 4 days prior to closing[10], to which he responded[11], though he later confirmed voluntarily abstaining.[12]

Huaiwei appears to have attempted to take ownership over the article[13], opposing any changes proposed, reverting any edit that he doesn't see fit without any improvement[14], and WikiLawyering his way out of talks instead of helping to build consensus[15]. I edited the lead[16] per the mediator's closing comments[17], only for Huaiwei to re-add it all back verbatim[18]. At the very least, the final move appears to me to be against the policy on resolving disputes ("Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.") and the guideline on consensus ("Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been adjudged a violation of consensus")

His block log [19] shows a total of 11 separate blocks in the past 16 months; all of them for edit warring, three revert rule or probation violations. It appears that simple short-term bans have had no effect on his behavior as of yet, so there's little hope that another simple slap on the wrist and short block will fix anything.

Statement by semi-involved User Wizardry Dragon

Full disclosure: I am a friend an associate of Thadius856. Although I am not involved in the dispute proper, I feel it appropriate to name myself a semi-involved party due to this association. Cheers.

First of all, It should be noted that Huawei has been a party in three previous disputes, unrelated, in regards to Instantnood's alleged POV pushing at and in relation to Single-party state. As these cases revolved around Instandnood's conduct or misconduct, I feel it is appropriate ArbCom examine the conduct of Huaiwei. It is my opinion that he has come under the impression that he somehow owns these articles, and he has been disruptive, to say the least, when dealing with editors in relation to this article, as indicated by Thadius856's statement above. He has acted in a matter unconductive to furthering the Encyclopedia by disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, the point seeming to be that he owns the article. The thing is, he doesn't.

Furthermore, I would like to add that Huaiwei's refusal to honour the Mediation Cabal ruling, despite ample chance to do so, given a month of notice, seems to suggest that they disregard the dispute resolution process and it's remedies, and will simply do what they are doing regardless. I think the time has come for the Arbitration Committee to bring this user back in line. Shape up, or ship out. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum In further support of the need for this case to be looked at more thoroughly, simply look to the number of bans that have been issued, in Janurary alone in relation to Huaiwei:

• • Banned from Category:Chinese Newspapers, January 11, 2006.
  • Banned from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway, January 12, 2006.
  • Banned from Queensway, January 12, 2006.
  • Banned from Supreme court, January 16, 2006.
  • Banned from List of museums, January 19, 2006.
  • Banned from List of airlines, January 20, 2006.
  • Banned from Clock tower, January 23, 2006.
  • Banned from Lists of country-related topics, January 23, 2006.
  • Banned from Singapore Science Centre, January 24, 2006.

Also, note that Huaiwei has been blocked no less than eleven times.

In short, I think a stronger remedy than probation is neccesary and that the pattern of abuse needs looking at in greater detail. The pattern to me seems to suggest long term abuse. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by SchmuckyTheCat

I have never read this talk page where the dispute is taking place. I want to add the comment that this whole issue of the lead sentence containing translations versus infoboxes is happening across tons of articles for several months. Various Wikipedia guidelines and several manuals of style (some specialized to specific languages) are completely contradictory on this issue. Huaiwei has supported infoboxes in some places so I'm not sure what actually underlies this dispute.

I don't think ArbCom is the place for this dispute at this time but some sort of call should go out to standardize the issue of extensive translations in lead introductions. If the filer of this dispute thinks Huaiwei's behavior is a violation of previous ArbCom rulings he should take it to Arbitration Enforcement. (And a personal note to Huaiwei: if they brought it here, maybe you should chill out?).

Clerk notes

Huaiwei is under probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. It looks like this can be handled by filing a complaint at Arbitration enforcement rather than opening a new case. Thatcher131 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Husnock

Initiated by CBD at 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Morwen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Thebainer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport'
• Durin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Husnock
• Thebainer
• Morwen
• CBDunkerson sent the notices and Dan Rappaport has no account, but will presumably be notified by Husnock
• Durin

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

While there have been no formal RfCs or mediation there has been extensive community discussion of these issues, providing the equivalent. Further, this issue may only be resolvable by de-sysoping and thus a steward directed that an ArbCom case be opened for it.

• Husnock's allegations against Durin were discussed here.

Statement by Colonel D.R.

Posted from an old message as this person is now in Bahrain and also does not wish to become involved in this website too deeply. He stated to me his original letter stands. -Husnock 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia-

My name is Dan Rappaport, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel attached to CENTCOM currently serving in the Middle East. In real life, I know who Husnock is and he is a pretty great guy. I’ve been on Wikipedia off and on over three years and I saw this conversation after hearing about it from Husnock. I had at first sent a strong worded letter to “Morwen” who started this thing by saying Husnock wanted to kill her. It was pretty sad that this was removed from your website as an “attack” when my point was to show to Morwen how ridiculous it was to state that a United States Naval officer, stationed in the Middle East, would want to kill her. Also, it was a slap against Husnock. The man is married and has a kid on the way. Why the fuck would he go to England to hurt some girl because she posted some crap about Star Trek? Right after all this, Husnock decides to leave this site but gets beat up even for that. His webpage is messed with, blocked from the site, and it seems the same people are showing up over and over again to run him down and say he’s wrong. Now, lets take a look at what’s happened in the last few weeks. My understanding is limited to what I can find, but here goes: 1) Husnock gets told by a guy named Durin that he’s been uploading bad images for months and he will be investigated and then he is asked to hand over addresses and phone numbers of everyone he’s talked too, including his dead grandmother or something like that. That same day, he learns that someone’s sending e-mails trying to find out who he is and then a week later his pregnant wife gets threatened when’s he overseas. Yeah, that would piss me off, too. 2) Okay, so the Durin affair ends and then he gets drawn into these articles about Star Trek. I took a look and it seems he came around about those. I don’t know your policies that well, but the whole point with that nonsense appeared to be references being called false and then, yeah, people got pretty mean with Husnock. I saw a couple of edits where he’s called names and one where he’s called crap. So, point 2, yeah that might piss me off too. 3)Now, here we are with this whole death threat bullshit. Husnock threatened no one. He told a punk kid in the UK that she had no right telling a United States armed forces member that he couldn’t edit this site. Good for him. The girl then posts for anyone to see that Husnock threatened her life and she now fears him. News flash since folks don’t know, that drew real world attention and Husnock was talked to by some authorities, including NCIS. After all, a citizen of the United Kingdom posted on a public website that a U.S. Naval Officer had threatened to kill her. Maybe you all don’t see how serious that is but I do and, you bet, that would ROYALLY piss me if it happened to me. 4) Last we come to Husnock leaving. He says he’s leaving, he tries, but again gets beat up since he came back to vote on one of your pages and then someone screws with his webpage. He tries to stop them, gets blocked, and then here we are all, beating him about it, going back to the death threat issue, and saying things about those stupid images, half of which I think Husnock deleted from your site. So, where do we stand? I think you guys have treated this fine man like total shit. But, hey this is a website, not real life, and I talked to Husnock at lunchtime he was cool with everything. He knows this is not real, do most of you? He is gone now, he really is not coming back. I just wanted to stop in and share my thoughts. I hope everyone is proud of themselves because you really have run him off for good. That’s my two cents. God Bless the USA. -Dan

P.S.: Husnock gave me his account password so I could post this letter since half the ip addresses in Dubai are blocked by this site. You guys should really do something about that. No one can log on or create a new account. -Dan

Statement by Husnock

At last, here is the person from which everyone wants to here. I am finished actively editing articles on this site but wanted to come here one last time and write a full description of what’s been going. When I am done, I think everyone will see a pattern of just general nastiness towards m by people that on this site which will, if not justify, at least explain some of the things I’ve done. The charges against me are lengthy, so too will be my responses since I want to clear my name. In the end, I am asking that any block against me be dismissed and I will even go so far as to ask for my admin powers back. As it stands right now, I stand on a ban from this site with all admin powers removed. Here goes with the statement of what lead us here today.

Durin and the copyright violations

To start with this, this dispute began over a sub-page of my user page displaying flag images of places I’ve been. Some time ago, this page started getting blanked and I did not know why. I at first restored it because I didn’t know why it was being blanked but it was later said I couldn’t use fair use images on a user page. This I accepted and began a campaign to locate totally free images. I did this work for several weeks, writing various cities and other agencies trying to find copyright free flags which could be posted and used by anyone. Then, Durin reappears. Now, before I go any further, understand that it is known now that Durin meant no harm, he was trying to help the site not hurt it. But, at that time, I didn’t see it that way Durin began by challenging where these images were coming from, seeming to imply that I was falsely stating where they were coming from. I explained to Durin that I had gone to great lengths to find copyright free images. An issue was then raised about imges I had gotten from the JAG offices of CNFK and CNFJ. I had been told by lawyers that these images were free. Durin stated that I and these lawyers were wrong. The final blow was when Durin seemed to ask me for the phone number of my ex-finance and a friend of my late grandfather so he could call them and talk to them about images. This sent over the edge, it really made me upset. I went to the Wikipedia and begged them to stop Durin from following my edits, especially after learning of a page he created. Very shortly afterward, I had something happen which still chills me to the bone. Someone (and I stressed at least four times since then it was not Durin) e-mailed two cities I had gotten flags from asking for my real name and e-mail so they could “find me”. The very next day, I learned from another person that someone had sent an e-mail to my current employer (my Navy command), stating that I was posting military secrets on Wikipedia. Thank God this was dismissed at as a joke. The very next day, my wife calls me long distance from the US and says someone sent her an e-mail calling me a “bastard” and her a “bitch”, referencing my work n Wikipedia. We responded to this email account that the police had been notified and have not heard anything more of it. Anyway, after all this was over, Durin and I have tried to bury the hatchet. I deleted the flag page and went through his page, fixing the images I knew about. I deleted a lot of Star Trek images and updated a few more. His page, though, has hundreds of images on it. I have not had the time to update all of them yet. However, the dispute I thought was closed. When recent issues began to arose, at least three people brought up that I had committed copyright violations and one person openly stated “Husncok has posted dozens if not hundreds of copyvio images with fake PD tags” or words to that affect. It almost seemed as if people were trying to “dig up dirt” as if to show I was a bad person.

Star Trek AfDs

This one people have me on, I was fifty percent wrong, but there were things going on that have to be discussed. It begins with a long standing article, Warrant Officer (Star Trek) getting AfD when Coolcat and myself (the primary contributors) were not contacted about it or asked to improve it. Coolcat defended the article with all of his might and, when it got deleted, over turned it at a deletion review. A user then openly stated that this had upset them and, to solve the problem, they would AfD the parent article Conjectured ranks of the Starfleet. So, another AfD begins and when it is brought up that this article is well sourced with 17 references, the references themselves are challenged. Things then get uncivil with statements made that Coolcat and Husnock are trying t pass over “hogwash”, that they are “crufateers” and their edits “crap”. Coolcat also stated, via private e-mail, that he received goading and baiting e-mail messages through the Wikipedia e-mail system. Then, in the middle of the AfD on the conjectured rank article another article Coolcat has worked on gets brought for AfD by the same people who had been uncivil and according to Coolcat, posting baiting messages for him. Then we have the article of Starfleet Security which, after being heavily rewritten and expanded, is first called a copyright violation , once declared that it is not, AfDed. Moren apeaks of this copyvio and how I stated it was bad faith. At first, I thought it was. I had finised a major rewrite, the article looked nothing like its memory alpha counterpart and then we see a copyvio notice from Memory Alpha. This was resolved and, I cant recall when, but at some point I stated publicly that Morwen had been right and the copyright vio had not been faith.

Death Threat Accusation

This is where things started to get very nasty. After the initial copyvio problem, I tried to approach Morwen and become somewhat friendly. I posted to her talk page that was of English descent and invited her to help me improve my own user page. These requests were met with, how shall I say, a cold shoulder. Then we have Law in Star Trek which was an extensive rewirte of yet another Star Trek Afd started by the same people who were going around to the Coolcat articles. Morwen began challenging the source material once again. When given the names of books (Klingon Covert Operations Manual for ne) she would say that the sources were not valid. Then there is a strange statement about me not “allowing her” to edit articles. When I ask what she means, she states for all to see that I had threatened her and she is in fear of her life. I thought I was going to be banned at once for making a death threat. I went at once to the admin board and stated what had happened. Then, much to my horror, the exact same people who had been involved with the Star trek AfDs and had been uncivil (in my opinion) appear and start defending Morwen. I am told that, yes I made a threat, I was wrong, etc etc. Now, bear in mind, I saw this threat as incredibly false and I personally think anyone who makes a statement on Wikpedia that they fear for their life because of another user should have their facts in damn straight order before they say something like that. I also was deeply insulted by it. I am a military officer, I have a wife and an unborn child. I tried to be friends with Morwen, I tried to be nice to her on her talk page. She responds by saying I threatened her life and the same people involved with the AfDs then appear as if they were following my edits. Yes, I was very VERY upset about that. So, this conversation about this continues until at last I say I am sorry. Far from an evasive apology, I think I said something like I was sorr for everything, Morwen had done no wrong, the copyvio was not bad faith, and I would source my articles from now on. Now, this is where it gets good. Less than 12 hours later an e-mail shows up in my real world account saying that NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) had received a report that a United States Naval Officer had threatened the life of a citizen of the United Kingdom on the internet and that they thought it was me as my real e-mail had been given (to clarify, my real e-mail address is buried away in my user page history but I don’t want to say where). This was cleared up rather quickly but again very upsetting. The next day I choose to leave Wikipedia.

Leaving the site

So, I thought I was done but then was contacted by two users who wanted me to come back and help defend one of the previous mentioned Star Trek articles which was AGAIN up for an AfD. I did so still with the pledge I would not edit articles. I gave my opinion to this, but then a message was posted to my talk page that I was lying about leaving Wikpedia. He user in question statied that my departure notice was a “flat out lie” and this message, obviously, was only to serve the purpose of baiting me. The enxt day, I put a disclaimer on my page stating I was stil going to participate in AfDs and revert vandalism but would not edit articles.

Then we have another User who arrives and removes my departure statement stating it was a personal attack. Not only is the Morwen info removed, but so too is the material about being Wiki-stalked I the real world (unrelated to Morwen or Durin and nowhere did I name names but simply stated what had happened. That statement was quite mild, not a personal attack, but simply saying why I was leaving. I reverted this change and asked the user to please not censor my user page. The user then reverted the change and, when I asked again not to edit war on my user page, the user blocked me for a month. This I felt was wrong beyond belief as I had been blocked by a user in the other side of a dispute in an attempt to silence me. I had never had this happen before and though I ws within my rights to unblock myself. So I did, but have been told this was wrong. I simply didn’t know the rules and was quite outraged by another admin blocking me after blanking my user page.

Colonel posts

Then we get to this person. I will state right now on the honor of everything I hold dear, this is a real person. I have known him since my days in Korea and he uses this site for its material but doesn’t really edit. During the Death Threat thing, he posted a talk page message t Morwen. Apart from him calling her a “little girl”, I don’t think his message was a personal attack. And, he was pretty pissed off at the time since he kenw about the NCIS thing and was (and still is) of the opinion that Morwen contacted them (I’m not saying that’s true). So, why did I not admit I knew him? Because, at the the time, I was surprised he had posted. It would also be a serious thing for me to confirm his real name, rank, and state that yes I knew him and he lived in Dubai. He has since said I can say this but at time was worried about hi security. So, instead, I tried to get people to see his comment not as threatening. I think it was seen as such because it went against Morwen’s versions of things and posted something people didn’t want to see.

In the time since the first post, the person n question has been trying to establish an account but cannot do so because apparently all the ip addresses where he lives are blocked for one reason or the other. According to what he told me, he tried over and over again and e-mailed at least two other people, he then called me and asked if he could post a letter using my account, stating his inability to establish a Wikipedia account. I attempt to unblock his ip as well, and cannot. So, the time frame goes somrthing like this. Within five minutes, he has my password, logs on, posts his letter, and logs off. He is honest about it and states who he is and how he was able to post. Five seconds after he logs off, I change my password. I’ve known this man for five years and have no reason to expect anything bad from him. Then, after this is done, I am told that I am permanently blocked from this site (without even a warning) as if I had committed some terrible serious offense like post a legal threat or real death threat. The letter from the Colonel is removed in less than a minute as “trolling”, again as if people didn’t like what it had to say. Is there a policy saying one cannot share their password this way? I did not know of any.

Actions since the ban

Since I ws blocked, I’ve done hardly any editing. However, looking at my talk page, I see two uses who have posted what appear to be baiting messages and “kick you when you’re down” postings. One openly calls me stupid and a liar another starts a deletion discussion of an image I uploaded months ago knowing that I am blocked and will not be able to participate. Then I see people have targeted another user who has nothing at all to dow tih this but is simply guilty of living in the same area that I do and establishing an account while this is all going on. I will state for the record that I have no idea who this Camel Commodore is. I also observe an entire discussion ws started about him, but nobody actually asked the user what the deal was. His ip address is traced, a message is postes saying people “know” he’s me and then this por soul goes to the Main Page and posts a frightened message that people are saying these thing about him.

There is the entire statement. As I am facing a permament ban and total removal o my admin rights, this had to be lengthy. I have thousands of edits on this site, have created some outstanding articles and have barnstars. I don’t see where this hatred came from but now people can see why I did the things I did. I also add that people have defended Morwen left and right, saying how evil and wrong I was. But nowhere a word about how Morwen said these things about me insulting my honor and my family. Nowhere about the real stalking incident. You will also notice, I havnt filled the statement up above with links to other discussions or inlines to edit histories to prove what I am saying is true. That would take far too long and I have a little bit of hope that it isn’t necessary but people will just read what I wrote and deciede. With that, I bid everyone goodnight and hope this can get resolved.

An emergency followup to this is that after posting this statement, User:CamelCommodore posted to my talk page as if he were me. This is now scary. I am trying not to get banned from the site and this action the occurs as if to confirm a sockpuppet in a discredit effort. I don't know whats going on anymore. -Husnock 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by CBDunkerson

This case began as a series of misunderstandings and failures to assume good faith / move on / behave with tolerance towards others... and grew into the indefinite block of the admin Husnock for giving his password to another person. Husnock has indicated that he is leaving Wikipedia, but would like the option to return at some time in the future and therefor wishes to be unblocked. Several admins have expressed concern that sharing his password, and subsequent statements defending the action, make it difficult to unblock with confidence that the account will be used only by Husnock. There are also concerns about Husnock's recent unblocking of himself on another matter (he has apologized for that and allowed the most recent block to stand), the original dispute about a hostile comment Husnock made which was taken by Morwen as a possible death threat (though it now seems generally accepted that was not the intent), false statements about not knowing the person (Dan Rappaport) whom he later gave access to his account due to their close friendship, and older issues with the copyright status of many images he has uploaded. For his part, Husnock has questioned the propriety of the original suggestion of a possible death threat, efforts by Thebainer to remove Husnock's complaints about this from his user page, the one month block placed by Thebainer following that dispute, and 'general hostility' from various editors. There are valid reasons for complaint, of varying significance, on most of these disagreements. However, the central issue at this point is the question of whether the account should be unblocked with admin status intact... which ironically might also be needed to allow Husnock and/or Dan Rappaport to respond to this request. --CBD 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Husnock's admin access has subsequently been removed and I have unblocked him as there is no longer any danger of mis-use of admin powers. This may greatly reduce the need for ArbCom involvement unless Husnock plans to stay and appeal the de-sysoping. --CBD 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

A number of threads on the administrators' noticeboard have convinced me that Husnock does not have the temperment to be an admin. In addition to the serious charge that he has given his sysop password to another person (or has engaged in sockpuppetry to make it appear so), I also support de-sysopping on the grounds of "conduct unbecoming an admin" for lack of a better term. CBD has not mentioned the extremely contentious argument Husnock had with User:Durin. See here. The conflict began when Durin challenged a number of Husnock's image uploads. Husnock seemed to take this very personally. At one point, Durin pointed out to Husnock that his name was legible on his self-portrait Image:HusnockMidway.jpg and even provided uploaded a free replacement with the name obscured at Image:HusnockMidway1.jpg. Husnock later accused Durin of placing his family in danger. Husnock has maintained an archive of his interactions with Durin at User:Husnock/Durinconcerns. During this situation both Taxman and Mindspillage asked Husnock to back off, although he continued to make complaints and stir the pot.

Husnock has engaged in a highly contentious series of discussions regarding articles which he created or edited heavily which were nominated for deletion, and accused the nominators and AfD participants of acting in bad faith, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Possible_bad_faith_copy-vio_notice and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive63#Unfair_and_biased_deletion_notice.

The most recent situation began Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation, with Morwen possibly overreacting to a possible threat. It escalated however with this post to Morwen's talk page from a Dubai IP address, supposedly from LCOL Dan Rappaport of CENTCOM. Just a few days after denying he even knew the alleged LCOL, Husnock has now said Rappaport's is his friend and he has given Rappaport his account password.

Statement by User:Morwen

As background, I've a number of disputes with User:Husnock, all on Star Trek-related articles. The initial concern was that User:Husnock was adding material from memory, rather than having access to sources. As an example here, he explicitly cites his memory as a source

With the article Starfleet Security, myself and User:EEMeltonIV had been trying to explain to him why certain information was original research or speculation and not appropriate for Wikipedia (such as extrapolating details about the internal organisation of a fictional entity based on the costumes in the show). In the middle of this, I notice that the entire page was, and always has been a copyvio. I tag it as such, as the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems state. For some reason, even though I made it clear the copyvio had been their since the very first version, User:Husnock interprets this as an attack on him, and reports me here at WP:AN, claiming a "possible bad faith copy-vio". The admins there agree that the article is a copyvio, and it is decided instead to fix the problem just by removing the offending sentences, rather than go through the proper procedure of deleting the page and starting again. Fine, ok. Whatever.

Then, the very next day, despite being corrected, and the examples of the copyvio sentences used verbatim being pasted on the talk page he is continued with the lie that I had accused him of copyvio and blanked the page without good reason. I challenge him on this, User_talk:Husnock/Archive_6#Question, and he claims that he doesn't have enough time to investigate whether or not he was flinging around bogus accusations or not. But he did have enough time to continue editing lots of other articles.

This is the context the exchange happened in. See Talk:Law in Star Trek. I said

We can't just leave uncited material there for months in the hope you will remember it. If you don't have access to sources, then you simply should not be adding this type of stuff from your memory, please leave it to those of us who do

He said in response to me that

I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason.

This implied threat scared me. I consulted a few people and decided that it probably wasn't an actual death threat, it was just a creepy intimidating statement. I decide that, for the time being, it is better to let it rest?

I brought this up again, on Talk:Starfleet Security#Starfleet Dynamics (by the way in this section I discover that one of the publications he was citing is in fact an unlicenced fan publication, but that's by the bye.) I noted that he was having WP:OWN issues on the article. I try to explain the hostile atmosphere he was creating.

And frankly, your comment on Talk:Law in Star Trek that I should be careful advising you what to do because you are a "deployed member of the military", put me in fear of my life (and this comment from somebody who deplores bullies on his userpage!).

After this he basically portrayed himself as a victim, as if I was committing some horrible offence by being frightened by his vague threats. He or his friend even puts forth the argument that it couldn't possibly be a death threat, because it would be a gross inconvenience for him to come over here and kill me! Matters escalated. He pretended to leave, left a very nasty message on his talk page saying that he had been hounded out - if anything it is his own inability to accept he is fallible which is the problem. User:Thebainer removed the message and after some warnings blocked, him, he unblocked self, then the drama explodes to a new level. Within this are personal attacks from some Lt. Col, who User:Husnock initially claimed not to know, and now is a "good friend" - a good enough friend indeed to give him the keys to his sysop account - which he used to leave an abusive message on WP:AN/I about me. Morwen - Talk 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, whilst there are many parts of User:Husnock's statement that demand factual correction (I will at some point put together a timeline), there is one particular gross distortion that I feel I must correct. Plenty of users who had not contributed to Star Trek AFDs stated to him that his comments were at best unfortunate or at worst unacceptable. These include User:Kelly Martin, User:CBDunkerson, User:Thebainer and User:Isotope23 (I've not checked contrib history fully so some minor stuff may have happened). It is not some bizarre anti-Star Trek clique ganging up on him, as he seems to wish to portray. Morwen - Talk 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Werdna

Please note that a desysopping has been performed, on the grounds that Husnock's account has been compromised. [20] [21]. I do not intend to become a party to this case. — Werdna talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by blocking admin Phil Boswell

I blocked Husnock (talk · contribs) indefinitely because of Template:Wp-diff. I am not intending to become a party, I just want to make sure the record was straight as to who did what. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durin

I am uncertain as the scope this case is intended to cover. If this case is to cover all of Husnock's behaviors over time, especially with regards to his time as an administrator, then my comments would be of use to this case. If the case is to cover only the latest series of events covering the compromising of Husnock's account and abuse of admin privs by unblocking a legitimate block of himself, then I have no role.

With respect to areas where my comments may be of use; Husnock and I had a long dispute regarding the proper sourcing and tagging of images that he has uploaded and/or modified. The core of the dispute, that of the proper sourcing and tagging, has for the most part resolved though a large number of images remain uncorrected, and a much larger number remain unreviewed. Husnock appears amenable to these corrections at this time and I consider the core of the matter to be resolved. As part of the dispute, Husnock raised at least nine different accusations against me ranging from violating WP:AGF to stalking him and his family in real life. Husnock has mostly retracted the stalking in real life accusations, but many of the other accusations were never retracted. I considered this not central to the larger issue of the copyright status of images he has uploaded, and never really expected a retraction. Some related material may be found at User:Durin/Husnock images and User:Husnock/Durinconcerns. If the ArbCom requires more information on this series of events, I'm at their disposal. --Durin 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This seems to me to be an isolated case of bad judgement that escalated to truly farcical proportions. Husnock's original comment was crass, and he eventually apologised, but then seemed to go back on that, and then we have the mysterious Lt.-Col., and - well, you know the whole sorry tale.

Husnock is serving in the field (not an excuse, but an explanation). He seems to want to take at least a Wikivacation if not leave outright. He's been desysopped, I don't believe he's contesting that. I absolutely acknowledge Durin's concerns, and I joined the chorus telling Husnock that his comments were problematic, but if Husnock does not intend editing actively then we have no present problem to solve, and given the fact that he was a contributor sufficiently valued to be sysopped I don't think it's representative of his normal behaviour. Would a one-month preventive block help out? We can just do that, if people agree, but I think we're currently engaged in escalating a situation which may, if treated carefully, resolve itself. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved JChap2007

I have only been involved with Husnock to the extent I have disagreed with him at AfDs for a few Star Trek articles. However, I've just looked at the admin's noticeboard and related posts also and would like to offer my thoughts.

In Husnock's statement above, he asks for his admin powers to be reinstated, so there is a case for Arbcom to consider here. Many people (including myself) would question whether an admin who unblocked himself and shared access to his account with another person has the judgment necessary to be an administrator. It seems fairly obvious that these are bad ideas.

As for the other conflicts, let's just say no one has exactly covered themselves with glory here: statements were taken out of context in at most borderline reasonable interpretations and tensions needlessly heightened. Husnock shares some, but not all, of the blame for this. However, these other matters need to be solved with Wikilove and dialogue, not an Arbcom case, and would not be grounds for desysopping.

Accordingly, I would urge Arbcom to accept the case but limit themselves to considering Husnock's self-unblocking and account-sharing. JChap2007 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bastique

I notified Husnick on today's date that his sysop priveleges were removed. I was not a party then to the events, nor wish to become party to this arbitration. Bastique 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Viridae

The Warrant officer AfD mentioned (for which I was the closing admin) was not undeleted by DRV, but just straight out undeleted by CoolCat within hours of its demise at the hands of a unanimous afd. This is may or may not have a bearing on the case, but I felt that it was best that the complete picture be known. I do not wish to become a party in this case. Viridae^Talk 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Proto

I think it would be appropriate to note here that I have been involved involved in some way in this case on a number of occasions, and have followed Husnock's behaviour carefully.

My involvements:

1. Nominated the article, Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia for deletion - Husnock claimed that as the article had references, it was impossible for it to be original research, and my actions were in bad faith. When I expressed the opinion that this was not the case, Husnock complained to WP:AN, claiming bad faith and bullying was taking place. [22] A sequence of assertions from Husnock then took place about the bad faith of everyone who suggested 'deklete' in the AFD. [23] [24] [etc. Husnock refused to apologise or retract his comments. [25].
2. Blocked the IP address "Lt Col Dan Rappaport" used to post a threatening message to User:Morwen, which was User:195.229.242.88, initially for a month, then reduced to a week following comment on WP:AN/I (it was actually unblocked by me today, after a number of requests in presumed good faith from various people)
3. Noted Husnock had lied (see User_talk:Husnock, [26]) when he claimed he did not know "Lt Col Rappaport" (as he did here [27] after the IP had vandalised pages involving Husnock and copyright violation disputes with Durin), but subsequently revealed they were friends and colleagues, and gave Rappaport the password to his sysop-enabled account to 'let him have his say'.
4. Posted a summary ([28]) of some of Husnock's actions on WP:AN/I, which I reproduce verbatim here (and apologise for the use of the term 'hissy fit', which is not particularly kind) in response to a request to User:Elaragirl to explain the "disruption" Husnock was initially blocked for:

   I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.

   Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along ([29]). This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at WP:RFAr.

5. It was I who nominated an image Husnock had uploaded for deletion. As he had already mentioned that he was aware the image was invalidly tagged (as he had uploaded it well over a year ago), I do not believe this to be any kind of unfair nomination.
6. It was also I who described Husnock giving his password away as a 'stupid' thing to do. I accept that this could be construed as in violation of WP:CIVIL, but stand by the comment, if not the manner in which it was expressed. Proto::► 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would urge the ArbCom to accept the case, but to only consider Husnock's sysop status. Although he has had sysop status temporarily removed, I believe it would not be appropriate to return sysop status to an administrator who saw no issue with giving his password to someone else, unsupervised (I believe Husnock stated they communicated over the 'phone), ever. Husnock's possible failures to fully understand WP:AGF, WP:NOR, copyright, responsibiltiy, and truth, are separate issues and are ones that could and should be handled by the community, although I believe a strong suggestion to adhere to AGF and copyright in future might be in order. Proto::► 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by almost-uninvolved physicq210

I have not met Husnock before these listed incidents on WP:ANI and similar noticeboards, and I know not of the "threats" that may have been uttered by any parties of the dispute. What I do know and observed was that a trivial issue regarding a misinterpreted statement has exploded into a tangle of suspected incivility, uncovered grudges, copyright violations, and alleged threats, culminating into Husnock's self-unblocking, alleged sockpuppetry/impersonation by (depending on one's point of view) by a "CamelCommodore" and a statement by a "Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport."

I tried (without success) to mitigate the issue of Husnock's self-unblocking (though I do not condone said action) and tried to bring his grievances back to the fore a second time. Unfortunately, my good faith ran thin when Husnock gave his password of his admin account away to an unknown person, resulting in his desysopping. However, I still believe that Husnock does have good intentions to benefit the encyclopedia, and has only acted rashly at the heat of the moment when his minor complaint was turned into a full-fledged battle against him. I therefore urge the ArbCom to consider only Husnock's admin status (or lack of) instead of his other tragic missteps, which I believe he did in ignorance, not malice. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thebainer

There are many issues at play here; I for the moment am concerned only with those immediately relating to my block of Husnock.

The block followed a lengthy discussion on the administrators' noticeboard last week. The situation was an unpleasant escalation of what was almost universally recognised by those who commented on it as nothing more than a simple misunderstanding that could have been immediately resolved peacefully. Ultimately, after much intervention by several previously uninvolved parties (including myself, both directly and on the noticeboard; Kelly Martin, directly; and several users including CBDunkerson, Viridae and Carcharoth on the noticeboard) the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of all, and the community moved on, regarding the dispute as closed.

Throughout my attempts to resolve the dispute at this stage, I believe that I made an extremely fair and neutral effort to reach a peaceful resolution. I tried to de-escalate the situation by reiterating that it began solely with a misunderstanding and that the community recognised the incident as such. I attempted to convey to Husnock that his legitimate concerns could be addressed if he was willing to participate reasonably in reaching a solution.

This is the point where opinions diverge. Husnock added a message to his user page announcing his supposed departure, in which Husnock persisted with his original line of argument from the preceding dispute, suggesting that the incident was not a misunderstanding. This message may have been considered uncivil or disruptive by some; but I would even consider this statement a relatively reasonable expression of his concerns (which had been recognised by the community as legitimate) and the reasons for his wikibreak.

However, this edit, in my opinion, was absolutely crucial. With that edit, the message crossed a line from being a legitimate expression of grievances, framed in passive language, to an indication of an intention to reignite an already resolved dispute, directed at a particular user, and framed in active language. In my opinion, not only was this edit disruptive within the boundaries of this individual dispute, but it was disruptive to the community at large: it represents an utter disregard for and repudiaton of the community's efforts to peacably resolve disputes. This discussion followed, as a result of which I blocked Husnock.

I don't know whether the Committee is prepared to make findings on such a confined issue as the propriety of an indivudual block, but that is the extent of my involvement here. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Chacor

Per above, just to clear things up: When "Dan" posted using Husnock's account, I was the one who reverted it initially, and went to the stewards channel on IRC to see if an emergency desysopping could be performed. Otherwise, I am uninvolved and don't wish to become a party. – Chacor 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view on a couple narrow issues

1. People should not go berserk about the password sharing incident (ZOMG, a sysop password got compromised!!!). Wikipedia tradition (for good or bad) holds that adminship is no big deal and it's given to practically anyone on the basis that most admin actions are reversible, so it should follow that even malicious compromise of an admin account should not cause Wikipedia to collapse. Yes, temporarily lending a password (admin or non-admin) as described is ill-advised, but the intention and effect (at least as stated) was good. The remedy for this particular error should be "don't do that again, especially with admin accounts", not crucifixion. A better approach for the situation would have been to create a new account for the other person, give them that password, and tell them to change it to one of their own choosing. The Stewards did the right thing by not desysopping on the first request since no actual abuse of admin bits had occurred.[30]
2. I saw the "threat" as neither "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm in the military and am entitled to special treatment" but something more along the lines of "the military is a large, close-knit organization whose members are highly protective of each other and a number of them edit Wikipedia. If you do something unfair to one of them then probably quite a few more will be upset with you and/or with Wikipedia in general, causing a wider ripple of unnecessary tension than you might have expected".
3. I don't take a view on other parts of the dispute except to say Husnock and several other people seem confused about a number of things that I hope the arbcom will treat judiciously.

67.117.130.181 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• I did a CheckUser on CamelCommodore, and it uses the same IP as Husnock. It might be someone else on the shared IP, but, under the circumstances and based on the times, that seems unlikely. Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked CamelCommodore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a trolling-only account before I saw Dmcdevit's message. Thatcher131 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking that person. I state for the record very strongly I do not know who that is. I think it is either a person with a warped sense of helping or a discredit attempt. The person apparently lives in the same area that I do and knows Coolcat, for whats it worth. -Husnock 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They are now requesting unblock on their user talk page. Just a FYI. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of further requests for the checkuser (if these don't violate privacy): does the IP in question look like a proxy server? In particular are there edits coming from it at any time which aren't User:Husnock or User:CamelCommodore? Morwen - Talk 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The user called CamelCommodore was permanently banned from this site and now is trying to get this overturned. He is meeting name calling as a sockpuppet of me and a meatpuppet of Coolcat. This really looks like a case of don't bit a newbie. I've talked to Coolcat via private e-mail and this was someone he knew who also lives in the Middle East. I am formally stating (again) that this person I did not know and he isn't me. We might want to let this one go instead of kicking this guy completly off the site. That really doesn't seem fair. -Husnock 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

and the explanation of this edit is? Morwen - Talk 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

He posted an admin noticeboard message about it. Something about not understanding how messages were signed. I would feel bad if someone who didn't know any better was banned from Wikipedia over a misunderstanding about me and I see no harm in giving the person a second chance even though he did pretend to me on my talk page. After all, that's all he did. He didn't touch an article or get involved with the discussion here. Maybe we should go the horse's mouth (or camel's mouth in this case!) and get a statement from him. What would be the best way to proceed? I dont want to do anything that could later be misunderstood. -Husnock 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add User:Coolcat as a party to this. He was directly involved with the Star Trek AfDs and also introduced CamelCommodore to this site. I also wish to amend my request for simply no block as a result of this, don't care about admin powers, and ask that CamelCommodore not suffer a permanent block for trying to help me since thats not fair. -Husnock 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More drama about the Camel Commodore situation. I recieved two e-mails from the person behind the account who is swearing this was a misunderstanding. I've asked the blocking admin to release him [31]. I've also asked Coolcat to log on and clear this up, he hasn't answered me about that yet. This really does seem to be a real person and I see no harm in unblocking to at least see what the guy does. after all, when you get down to it, what exactly did he do to warrant a permanent ban? -Husnock 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the apparent real-life stalking incidents you mention above, I am surprised that you are suddenly so willing to give this person, whose edits seem purposed to get you in trouble by acting like a sockpuppet of you, a second chance, based on a very weak justification of what he did. Do you think it is possible this could be the person who did the emails you report above, trying to get you in trouble? Maybe this is also the person who tipped off NCIS? Morwen - Talk 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. He seems nice enough, but who knows. NCIS was tipped off by via e-mail by someone in Iceland, they told me, so I don't think its him. :-) I just feel bad he was banned for something so trival. And, anyway, I'm sorry for everything. I've given up all chance of admin rights returning and once this ArbCom is over won't be on the site until at least I get back to the U.S. next year. Just don't want to see anyone else hurt. -Husnock 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept, to look at both admin and the wider issues that have been brought up. Dmcdevit·t 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Starwood/ACE et al. links

Initiated by Pigman at 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

(This is my first RFAR so I'm a little uncertain whether I should list everyone involved. I'm only including some of those from one side of the matter. If you would like a more complete list, please ask me and I'll draw one up. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Timmy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BostonMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Pigman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Septegram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rosencomet has inserted numerous links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium since August 2006. Rosencomet is thoroughly involved and connected to these groups. Other editor's attempts to dispute or remove these links have been blocked. Additionally, proponents in favor of the links have harassed editors opposing most or all of these links.

Requests for comment

Over time there have been several related RfCs and mediations:

• Talk:Starwood_Festival#Request_for_Comment:_Inserting_references_to_Starwood_Festival_in_articles
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
• Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse is related. User:999 and User:Hanuman Das say this demonstrates Mattisse has used sockpuppets to give the impression for greater support for Mattisse's actions; an outside view argues this RFC was filed in retaliation.

Statement by User:Paul_Pigman

The internal links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium from performers/presenters' pages seems grossly overdone. They appear to fall under the WP:SPAM guidelines. These links have been persistently and systematically added by User:Rosencomet. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. (Those five might be connected as well. I do not know.) Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. Since Rosencomet used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", he has a conflict of interest. The vast majority of these internal link insertions appear gratuitous and intended to increase visibility of ACE and its events. Several other editors have commented on this here, here, and here. Many of these inserted references seem to have little relationship to their appropriateness or significance to the subject. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here.

Additionally, editors who have attempted to change these links or argued for their removal have been subject to harassing and disruptive actions against them. Recent examples here and here. Hanuman Das has probably been the most persistent of these. Please see his block log for recent violations. Others have been Ekajati and 999.

Statement by Hanuman Das

I formally withdrew from the mediation here when the new mediator took over. I agreed not to edit the links in question, and I have kept that agreement. Please remove me from the arbitration. You may also note that this is the current mediation page, and I have posted no comments whatsoever on the page, since I withdrew before mediation started. The first mediation page is a complete red herring as the mediator never appeared or did any mediation. The only mediation which has occurred is on the page I have just given. I request that my name be removed from this request as I decline to participate. —Hanuman Das

Statement by Mattisse

If User:Hanuman Das has withdrawn I have very little issue here. He was the primary person who harassed me along with User:999 (who is on wikibreak) and User:Ekajati (who has not been named). I have no particular issue with Rosencomet separate from what people will cover here independent of my comments. My primary issue was the harassment. As far as Rosencomet is concerned, I feel he was enabled and condoned by those around him on Wikipedia. But he did not harass me or cause me personal grief. Therefore, I wish to withdraw from this arbitration as it has no relevance to me at this point. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by WeniWidiWiki

Rosencomet the Executive Director of the for-profit organization ACE LLC created a wikipedia profile with the same name of a website he maintains called Rosencomet.com. This website is a commercial enterprise which promotes the for profit Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium and sells merchandise, tickets, etc. He created an autobiographical entry for Jeff Rosenbaum. His contribs show he has created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name and only single-mindedly edits entries which have something to do with this commercial endeavour. Several attempts at resolution and mediation have occured, and this mediation is still underway about the appropriateness of the links. However, a big problem with the current mediation that is not being addressed is that of Rosencomet's conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, and has not contributed to the mediation since being asked about his apparent conflict of interest. Since mediation is not compulsory, and he has apparently opted out, Arbitration is the last means of resolving this. - WeniWidiWiki 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ekajati

In my opinion, the ongoing mediation was going well and this RFaR was opened simply because Paul Pigman wasn't getting the result from mediation that he wanted. This is not the first time that he has attempted to bypass mediation or encourage others to join the mediation in an attempt to bias it in his favor. Vis. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].

It's also not clear to me, is this about the Starwood Festival links? Or is it retaliation against Hanuman Das for bringing up a privacy concern? [39]. I'm happy to participate if it is the former. I've got no interest in a witchhunt against any user's past actions, either Hanuman Das's or Mattisse's.

Also, please note that I was not informed of this arbitration request by Paul Pigman, though everybody on his side of the dispute seems to have been notified. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also would like to note that despite Mattisse's protests that she is not involved in the situation any more, that she almost immediately entered an opinion on the mediation page. That tells me that she is still involved and should be a party to this arbitration. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that there was no a priori intent to spam. The citations with external links were repeatedly requested by Mattisse and her several sockpuppets. The person who placed the linking citations did don't believe they were needed, but was bullied into placing them by Mattisse. Mattisse then used the presence of the external links to recruit others to help her fight "spam". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to broaden the scope of the RFaR to include the conflict of interest activities of two of the other parties, Paul Pigman and Kathryn_NicDhàna, who have also been spamming Wikipedia with links to their own site, paganachd.com. These two situations are incredibly similar. In both cases, the editors in question have conflict of interest issues and are adding links to their own sites to Wikipedia. In both cases, the links are wrapped as citations, and in both cases, there is (elsewhere on the site than where linked), commercial activity. However, where the Rosencomet case involves only supporting data, the Celtic Reconstructionist case involves a group of people using their own self-published research as references to support the repetition of their self-published research on Wikipedia. The beauty of this sitation is that it allows a much more refined arbitration: are both allowed? are both disallowed? is one allowed while the other disallowed, and why. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jkelly

I'd say that ArbCom can safely take a pass on this one. The actual behaviour seems to be adding Notable person was a guest speaker at [Convention] in [Year] [CITE the website] in the article [[Notable person]]. It's probably true that User:Rosencomet could use a stern reminder that it is inappropriate to replace such mentions when local editors to the articles in question remove them for lack of import, and an encouragement to recognise that editing that annoys people is probably bad and should be taken to talk to gather consensus. Frankly, local editors seem to be handling the situation appropriately, so it is not obvious to me that admin intervention is needed here, let alone an ArbCom case. Jkelly 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:999

I recv'd an urgent email from Hanuman Das about this RFaF. After reviewing it, I feel it is important for me to respond, although I will not have free time to participate until I return from vacation (my wife would kill me :-). I completely agree with Jkelly that local editors of the articles should decide the issue. However, it has not been local editors who have mostly been removing the additions. It has been Wikistalkers. First, Mattisse stalked Rosencomet, first removing the internal links, then adding citation requests. She was not a regular local editor of the articles in question: her first edits to each article was to interfere with Rosencomet. When local editors restored the links, she began using sockpuppets. When local editors continued to restore the links, she recruited other non-local editors, who then also began to stalk Rosencomet. These included BostonMA, Calton, User:Kathryn NicDhna. When other local editors such as Septegram supported the links as well, these users made multiple accusations of "spamming", urged on by Mattisse, in a rather uncivil manner. My recommendation is that these users abandon this effort except in cases where they truly were local editors of the article in question. I also urge acceptance of this RFaF, not as a referendum about the links, but about the stalking behaviour of these users who appear to be unwilling to let the actual local editors make these judgment calls. However, please note that while I would like to be involved, I will not be able to devote any significant time to this until January. -999 (Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:67.117.130.181

Wikipedia articles are not WP:OWN'ed by "local editors" or by anyone else. We all have the duty to clean up spam where we find it, and if someone inserts hundreds of links to his or her own site into Wikipedia, that is spam (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI). Also, Special:Linksearch and user contrib histories are essential tools for spam cleanup and using them to locate and remove spam links is not "stalking". If other "stalking" has taken place it hasn't been described here. The credulity of some of the mediation participants notwithstanding, spammers love to insert as many links as they can into Wikipedia, not just to attract visitors through the links but also to increase their search engine rank from the links' mere presence in Wikipedia, so they will find any rationalization they can for inserting and defending the links. Any analysis of this situation should done by viewing it through that lens. Finally, as of right now, linksearch shows 59 extlinks to *.rosencomet.com mostly in article space, so "local editors" IMO are not cleaning them up and so the task does fall to other editors. I certainly would have removed all of them if I'd come across them randomly. (I'll leave them alone for now).

I would not have thought this case had enough subtlety to lead anyone to call for an arbitration process. I'd have expected a straightforward user-initiated spam cleanup to remove the spam links, plus suitable administrative blocks against the spammers if the spamming continues, plus extlink blacklisting of the spammer's domains if necessary. If arbcom does take the case it should be to impose more drastic remedies than the above. (From uninvolved user 67.117.130.181 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)).

The pages are not WP:OWN'ED by the mediation participants either. I did look at the main mediation page before posting that but I missed the distinction about the nature of the spam at that time of night. OK--spammers are gaming the system by wrapping the spam up as "citations", as has been predicted and observed at other times. There was just a discussion of this on (IIRC) some AfD (I'll see if I can find a link). Anyway it's accepted practice in disputed articles to require that those wanting to insert facts into an article document not only that the facts are verifiable by reliable sources, but also that the facts' relevance to the article's subject's notability is verifiable. The Starwood Festival's (lack of) relevance to the subjects of the articles where those links originate is in fact discussed in the mediation. That plus the COI issues mean these links are still spam (both internal and external). I've struck out my comment that the case is so simple though. I don't think there's been an arb case of this nature before, so arbcom may want to weigh in. I may add some thoughts about the relevant principles to the RFAR talk page later. 67.117.130.181 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wjhonson

I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history here. I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. Wjhonson 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rosencomet

I, too, think that this is an unnecessary move and one designed to short-circuit an on-going mediation, and it's not the first time such an attempt was made. The issue of these links should be solved by coming to some type of compromise, but so far all the moves in that regard have been from one side of the issue. It has been overblown with accusations of "taking over articles" and "google-bombing", but the history shows that from the beginning one person demanded citations on facts under several sock-puppets names, then accused the editors of linkspam when the citations were provided, actually created false pages to increase the impression of this being a big problem, enlisted help under false pretense, and never apologized for ANY of these behaviors.

Pigman says that the links "seems grossly overdone" and "appear gratuitous". At the least, this is a subjective value judgement. He has not, though, specified any rule saying how many or what kind of internal links are allowable, nor has his deletion of citations & links been selective; and they have often been accompanied by comments like "deleting gratuitous linkspam". WeniWidiWiki has misrepresented both the articles and organization sponsoring Starwood, and made a lot of the notion that it is "for profit", and said I have "created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name". Actually, ACE is not-for-profit: all money coming in goes to programming, and no one working on ACE activities is paid a dime; although it should not matter, since plenty of for-profit organizations like IBM and XEROX have Wiki article and links. And the "hundreds of links" claim is flatly false. He/she has also made a big deal about the fact that I haven't responded to anything in the last 2 days, as if not living on line means I've "oppted out of the arbitration".

Though I have tried to compromise by putting up, taking down, expanding, rewriting, and otherwise changing the work I've done, there seems to be no recognition of this. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to make this about me instead of the issue of the links themselves. I think Che is doing a good job, and the only way progress can be made is if the folks making these moves will stop being unilateral and driving people away from Wikipedia, and actually seek a constructive middle ground with guidelines both sides can agree to. This arbitration should not take place, and the people involved should continue the mediation already in progress, and save the arbitrators from an unecessary and unpleasant task. Rosencomet 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (I believe the above statement is from Rosencomet. If I'm wrong please correct this. --Pigman 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

It is. I don't know why, but whenever I try to sign something on this page, it says I am not logged in, even though I am. Rosencomet

Statement by JzG

I am not sure if I should perhaps be included as a party, having taken part in some of the discussions around this subject. I looked into this and formed the view that there were several things going on:

• User:Rosencomet undoubtedly linkspammed and edited in support of his commercial enterprise, a clear conflict of interest.
• User:Mattisse worked against that, but through various actions and comments led to accusations of ill-faith; Matisse was also harassed by others, although he did not do over much to help his own cause here.
• Reasonably enough, citations were provided for a number of individuals' having taken part in the Starwood festival, these were in the form of links to the rosencomet site, which led to further allegations of linkspamming.
• Many of those individuals should not be linked to the Starwood festival as doing so gives undue weight to a very minor event in their lives and serves mainly to promote the commercial entity which is the festival, and appearing there is often (usually) of no demonstrable importance in the life of that individual.
• The Starwood, ACE and WInterStar articles should probably be merged.

I think that means I agree completely with Pigman :-) Guy (Help!) 13:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Statement by Che Nuevara

I'm mediating the case, but most of the issues here seem to predate my involvement; I took the case to attempt to foster civility and progress, and we seem to have at least an overarching feel of the former. I can't really comment on this case as I wasn't around for most of the issues, but I am available for comment if something that comes up on the mediation page becomes relevant. - Che Nuevara 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Statement by Kathryn NicDhàna

I hadn't planned on participating in this case, but as Ekajati has added me, I might as well make a brief statement. I first got pulled into this when, after seeing posts on WikProject:Neopaganism concerning the linkspam and non-notable articles by Rosencomet, I weighed in on the Taylor Ellwood AfD. Immediately 999 turned up on eleven articles I edit, eight of them where he had never appeared before. In one case he slapped a ProD on a sourced article. In another he began link-warring over a commercial, external link (not to Starwood). He admitted to some of this on my talk page, and I will provide diffs later if they seem notable to the pattern of harassment. At that time Ekajati also began placing "citation needed" flags on every sentence of some of the articles I was working on. Again, diffs later, if needed. Today she showed more of the same with these personal attacks and racism on my talk page: [40] [41]

Basically, I concur with Pigman, WeniWidiWiki and Guy that the ACE links are astroturfing, largely inappropriate, and "grossly overdone". I also agree wholeheartedly that Ekajati, 999, and Hanuman Das engaged in systematic harassment and attempts to intimidate anyone who removed or even questioned the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Hanuman Das' user and talk pages have been deleted at his request per m:Right to vanish. If the parties to this case believe these pages contain evidence necessary to this stage of the case (whether to accept or reject the request), please contact one of the clerks. Thatcher131 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How does one contact a clerk? His talk pages are essential to me if I have to become involved and maybe central to the case in general separate from me. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, do you mind if I undelete, blank and protect for now, at least HD's Talk, to facilitate debate? Guy (Help!) 11:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly if the case is accepted. Before that, I would prefer to respect Hanuman's wishes, but I have asked the arbitrators for clarfication. Thatcher131 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I moved some threaded comments and deleted some others (visible in the page history). Please comment in your own section only. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)

• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, but don't quit mediating if you are making progress Fred Bauder 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Nobs01 stands alone (Appeal)

Involved party

• Nobs01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

same as Nobs02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• AMA advocate: Imaglang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka "Neigel von Teighen")

Prior arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

NA

Statement by Nobs01

Nobs01 seeks a limited review of remedy 11) Nobs01 banned for personal attacks and modification of the specific language, "The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration". Appellant contends this constitutes an unfair burden based upon the fact certain evidence was disallowed unfairly branding Appellant as a troublemaker. Appellant seeks a "time served" result or whatever substitutional remedy the Committee may also deem appropriate.

Appellant seeks no punitive action against other users.

Several statements have been made which unfairly cast Appellant in a negative light. This is largely through a confluence of unfortune circumstances and mistakes. Appellant's training, interest and editing activity is reflected mostly in historical subjects and biographies of dead people. Appellant's first contact with Complainant arouse in a biography of a 92 year old gentlemen prior to WP:BLP, and Wikipedia is now much improved with the creation of such policy. This case however, fell through the cracks.

Appellant wishes to lie 2 Motions [42] [43] before the Committee regarding personal attacks which disrupted the previous hearing. One such attack was from a suspected sockpuppet whom the Committee later took punitive action against based upon the same evidence he presented against Nobs01 in the initial hearing. It is the unanswered nature of those attacks which now makes Appellant a target for abuse.

Appellant accepted the final ruling of the Committee and has not circumvented it. This limited review is quit simple, should not involve an inordinate amount of time, and provides the Committee with the opportunity to rectify an oversight. Appellant wishes the Committee to recognize a onetime error on his part, and the burden now imposed unfairly makes him a target. Nobs02 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

unfounded allegations

Complainant initially alleged a conspiracy of five editors led by Nobs01 and others acting in concert

Fred Bauder discovered

• "So far I have found no evidence of that" [44]
• "The fact that with the exception of [two other users], discrete remedies are proposed for each user serves" [on Motion by Nobs01 to publish a Finding of Fact] [45]
• "Nobs and his co-defendants were not such a [ideological] block" [46]
• "For a start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy." [47]
• "When [Complainant's] claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy" [48]

An Amicus Statement was made referring to "our friends in the LaRouche movement" [49]

Complainant also alleged that "Nobs01 [and others] work as team regarding LaRouche".

These unfounded allegations, now in the official record, constitute an unfair burden Appellant must bear, after having served his 12 month ban.

omitted evidence

The omitted evidence surrounds two RfM's, the second being accepted.

Policy ruling: good faith = harassment

Evidence will be presented that a policy ruling by the presiding Arbitrator could be interpreted to mean good faith = harassment. [50]

Also, there is a minor issue regarding abuse of RfC's, but that may not be necessary in this hearing.

Evidence presented by Clerk in Appeal of VeryVerily

Evidence presented by a Committee Clerk on the request of an Arbitrator in the Appeal of VeryVerily stated,

• in November last year, Timoteo III began making controversial edits to Alger Hiss, and engaged in revert warring. ([51], [52], [53]) His edits appeared to suspiciously agree with Ruy Lopez's; Ruy had also edited the article before. ([54], [55], [56], [57])

This suspected sockpuppet gave Evidence in Nobs01 initial hearing and made statements which were extremely damaging of Nobs01 personal integrity (see Motion 1), and may have affected the outcome of process. ArbCom made Principals, [58] Findings of fact [59] and took punitive action against the suspected sockpuppet for abuse [60] in the VeryVerily case. Nobs02 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

future concerns

Appellant's proposal, WikiProject Cold War History has already attracted a few willing collaborators in an area which which has been overly contentious in the past. Nobs02 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Neigel von Teighen

by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate taking the case for User:Nobs01 = User:Nobs02 (with permission by User:Fred Bauder [61] and [62])

I'm here to back up Nobs01's appeal on number 11 of Nobs01 and others case final decision as I believe he was mistakenly considered to be part and also leader of an "ideological block" intended to harrass another user. This appeal, differently as any other made before, tries to prove how wrong were those accusations and also revert the ban that derived from it (the already mentioned No. 11 decision), for Nobs01 had good-faithedly not violated it and certainly agrees on being put under another remedy to show his good faith. I believe this is a very concrete issue (as opposed to earlier appeals that were too broad on their petitions) and that won't need too much time for being decided.

As you surely know, Number 11 (titled Nobs01 banned for personal attacks) states:

11) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected. Passed 6-0

Number 12 puts Nobs01 on Probation for a year.

As the 1 year ban is ending on 23th December 2006 ([63]), we're appealing for a rewording of no. 11 that:

1. Does not establish the potential ban by 3 arbitrators, because of the circumstances that led to be decided.
2. But also something that puts Nobs01 under Mentorship for some amount of time as a way he has agree with to guarantee its good faithed acts.

As you see, our request is very specific and concrete: mentorship instead of potential banning by 3 arbs. Also, we don't pretend to reword number 12, which places Nobs01 on Probation neither any other decision taken. Also, we don't seek any punitive action against other users. We know ArbCom has never decided in favor of an appeal, mainly because of the inflated petitions of the appealing parties, but we really believe our request is very reasonable.

But what's the reason behind this? I personally believe the original decision is completely unnecessary nowadays. Nobs01 has proven to have good faith in completing his ban and hasn't ever tried to sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia. Also, he has proved to have good faith before ([64], accepted Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, and see also diffs below). He recognizes his responsability on the dispute with User:Cberlet; that's why he would be pleased to be placed under Mentorship, to become a better editor being guided by one of our best recognized users. Personally (just not as advocate!), I think is a very remarkable attitude.

But, also, there is another reason to revise the first arbitration's decision. This ban was established because of assuming that Nobs01's actions were part of a party's agenda trying to push its POV and disrupt Wikipedia's neutrality. This has been proven to be false (see below) and admitted by User:Fred Bauder later. This occured mainly because of an erronous omition of evidence coming from a mediation attempt, in a very strange decision by the arbitrators. I say "strange", because User:Vfp15 had used mediation in a similar purpose on the very famous (and conflictive) Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute in which I also acted as advocate, so it would very interesting to clarify that point in order to reach the proposed ban-lifting we're requesting.

I beg the Arbitration Committe to accept this, please. --Neigel von Teighen 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary

1. Our appeal is not simply to lift Nobs' ban. We propose to change it for another softer remedy because of the evidence we present and the idea that he has been put under an 'unfair burden' in the past arbitration with accusations on being an anti-Semitist and Nazi appologist (see above).
2. We propose to change the ban for mentorship (I propose 1 year).
3. And seek that someone please restore the mediation pages that were omitted by accident in the past arbitration.

Now I think it is clearer, so you can vote more informedly for accepting or rejecting our request. If any further clarification is needed, please tell me. --Neigel von Teighen 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Lostkiwi

Actually.. the rest of the sentence says: "Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue." And the next remedy says he is on indefinite parole.

This should be withdrawn or rejected. If Nobs01 came back to edit constructively, this is a non issue. I've removed this strong statement as I haven't looked at those possible improprieties brought up by Nobs and his advocate. I still feel a return to constructive editing would be more useful than going back on this one year old issue Lost Kiwi^(talk) 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I encouraged Nobs to come here via AMA instead of using socks, per a discussion on WikiEN-l. There seemed to be some mood that Nobs was perhaps a bit hard done by and could make useful contributions. The tone of this request, and other events alluded to, lead me to believe I have been naive. Again. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

• Please limit your statement to 500 words (preferrably less). Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remedy was sound. No basis exists to withdraw or modify it. Personal vilification of the type the remedy is intended to discourage is utterly unacceptable. Fred Bauder 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Aside from the malformed request here, and your use of a sockpuppet for ban evasion in the last few days, there's nothing convincing offered here. Dmcdevit·t 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Professor Omura/BDORT

Initiated by Richardmalter at 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Crum375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GenghizRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • See below, "Clerk notes"
  • Fucyfre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • SnarkBoojum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • TealCyfre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Arcsincostan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Whiffle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • WhiffleThePirate! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • TheStainlessSteelRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Philosophus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richardmalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • RichardMalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• anonymous IP's
  • 58.166.14.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 24.39.123.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 162.84.148.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Article: Yoshiaki Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Crum375 notified: [65]
• GenghizRat notified: [66]
• IP's: [67], [68], [69]
• Philosophus: added himself

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation tried repeatedly but Crum375 is "resistant to mediation" and acts in "extremely bad faith" said CheNuevara the last Mediator. [70] shows mediation efforts recently, and [71] shows more records and archives of previous mediation over many months. Richardmalter 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Crum375

Yoshiaki Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a man who invented an Alternative Medicine procedure he calls the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), in which a patient forms an 'O' with his/her fingers, with the diagnostician trying to pry the patient's fingers apart, while subjectively estimating the patient's finger strength. This procedure is then used by adherents to diagnose and/or treat many/most diseases known to man, from common cold to cancer. If the diagnostician is far from the patient, the procedure can also be carried out remotely via telephone.

The BDORT entry was created on April 11, 2006 by the user now known as User:GenghizRat (hereafter GR). It was initially two separate entries, BDORT and Omura, which were subsequently merged. The merge occured just around the time I arrived at the entry. I notice that User:Philosophus, who was there before I arrived, has described some of the early history of the entry, which matches my recollection.

Over the past 8 months or so, a single-issue editor User:Richardmalter (hereafter RM) who openly praises BDORT's merits, works with BDORT, teaches BDORT, and participates in BDORT seminars, having a clear conflict of interest in BDORT related matters, has been persistently trying to shape the Omura entry into a pro-BDORT version, in a clearly tendentious fashion, over objections of virtually all other neutral logged-in contributors, but with the occasional help of anon-IP's, who are apparent sock or meat puppets. RM has tried multiple reversions (often exceeding WP:3RR) and failed, tried to use sockpuppetry when blocked, tried insulting fellow editors and still failed to get his way. He then asked for mediation, which was a prolonged process, lasting months (partly due to frequent change of mediator - we had 6 total), which despite a valiant effort on the part of all mediators, failed to find an acceptable middle ground. Even after filing for Arbitration, RM continued his tendentious editing pattern, becoming blocked for 3RR violation yet again.

Despite RM's behavior and attitude, including frequent insults of other editors, frequent and repeated allegations of other editors' 'misbehavior' in bold face font and/or caps, and vandalism (deleting other editors' civil and pertinent comments from the article's Talk page), the other editors have consistently invited RM to participate on the Talk page constructively and civilly, but he declined.

Lately, some anon-IP's, who refuse to identify as another user and/or participate in the Talk page, have also edited in a similar fashion to RM. The anon-IP's also sometimes appear to threaten legal action unless their preferred version of the article is accepted or are unblocked. These IP's resolve to the NYC area (RM resides in Australia, although he has travelled to, and edited WP from the U.S. at least once) and have a different writing style from RM, so it's unlikely to be an RM sockpuppet, but could well be meatpuppet associates. The anon-IPs seem to edit more during periods when RM is blocked, and have lately begun to edit even more aggressively - and like RM were just now blocked for 3RR violation, even after this RfArb case was already underway, and are issuing apparent legal threats for being blocked, while insisting they are not 'threats'. According the the blocked IP's, WP is "conspiring to suppress proven, documented, revolutionary new diagnoses and treatments which have been repeatedly demonstrated around the world, and widely evaluated and published, and which could ease the suffering of MILLIONS.".

Examples of recent uncivil talk comments by RM:

• Tells Crum: "You avoid repeatedly, slandar (sic), misrepresent, revert your agreements, and hide your biases. We will start from a stub or have an edit war. You have tried your tricks before. Your reputation will be relayed to the Arbitration people as well as widely in wikipedia", on December 10, 2006
• Tells Crum: "Crum, your memory and reading are still lacking" when there is disagreement about past decisions, on November 23, 2006
• Deletes other people's civil and pertinent comments from Talk page, on December 8, 2006 (when confronted, claims it was 'an error')
• Tells Crum: "Crum, it is boring, and I have outlined your biases ... Your bias distorts things as usual", on December 16, 2006
• Attacks Crum in a bold faced section headline: "Crum should stop slandaring (sic)", on December 9, 2006
• Tells the admin who blocks him for 3RR violation he's a "lackey", on December 10, 2006
• Tells Crum and GR: "You would make a politician worthy of the worst of them ... you must have serious memory problems or that you are liars", on December 12, 2006
• Tells the last Mediator: "Crum is a very devious character willing to lie if necessary as he has done many times ... Liars cant be tolerated forever.", on December 12, 2006

And here is a recent apparent legal threat and attempt to intimidate ArbCom by the anon-IP meat puppet 24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Statement by Richardmalter

posted for Richardmalter from his talk page Thatcher131 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Underlying Supra-WP biases are the root of the conflict. Things considered in isolation will not tell the whole story. GenghizRat has used many handles and evaded admitting: "I am Whiffle. You are not . . ."[72]. He has a deep, major personal bias, confided in me (I keep faith, no details) he knew Omura personally, had major disagreements with him. He says there's no grudge, but he even tried to mock Omura's residence, "Omura's house (literally – well, apartment, anyway)"[73]. This November at a Symposium [74] that Omura Chairmans, he visited Columbia University campus and we know spread comments there aimed at denegrating the Symposium. He will deny this; but gives it away here indirectly "I had, by chance. . ."[75]. He created the original entry, with his underlying bias, which shows on line 1, to label the BDORT as 'pseudoscience' [[76]], which he continues throughout. His WP:OR/POV shows in his 'discursive' edits. He repeatedly evades full consensus mediated agreements (FCMA) that he was part of [77], and states the Mediator's records, Discussion closed and action taken as agreed [78] are "matters of interpretation"[79], etc.

Crum375's undeclared entrenched bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" [[80]]. He does not admit this motivation, but as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly"[81]. He wants to warn the world of his perceived danger of BDORT. All his behaviour that I could not understand for a while is coherent with this. It explains many actions including his repeated arguments[82] [83] [84] to have a "disclaimer"[85] after almost each paragraph [86] despite being told by Mediators/Admins, "not appropriate for Wikipedia"[87]. He too wont keep to FCMAs, tries to deny [88], evade them[89] repeatedly. Typically: first he denies agreements, "nothing whatsoever"[90]; when pressed admits they are, "minor technicalities" (fact: usage of a citation, in itself and for what); still evades, "only agreed to by me" (false[91]);later invents reasons[92] why he reverts FCMD which like all his discussion only sounds reasonable in isolation. Even when the last Mediator CheNuevara proposed we begin the most basic, neutral stub [93] and work from there to stop the edit warring, seconded as the "best option"[94] by Cowman109 (coordinator: Mediation Cabal), he was as the Mediator said "resistant" and showed a "continued lack of good faith"[95] to this - and so scuttled the last mediation attempt completely. He has an immovable bias. Also repeatedly misrepresents consensus regarding mediation process[96], tries to deny (his) agreements "no recollection"[97]; by "interpret[ing] agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith"[98]. He continually misrepresents consensus suggesting "wide consensus'[99] and "problem for one editor only"[100]. Even when Admins/Mediators give proposals for citations (which I agree to), if he interprets them as being in any way 'pro' BDORT he argues ad infinitum to not allow them against the Mediator's efforts [101] [102]. His 'mediation' effort was a sham, for example, requesting no one make unilateral changes, then he making a "unilateral change" (viz his bias). Re the much disputed NZ Tribunal citation, when Che the last mediator (and also the previous mediator) drafted a neutral version of it, I agreed to it without any major problem; the other parties either selectively quote from it or outweigh one quote from it with many to meet their POVs. I initated all mediation rounds. ALL real mediators have done a great job. The record shows I have gone along with everything they proposed - content and process (occasionally requesting minor adjustments, never blocking). The last mediator CheNuevara I quote as a neutral 3rd party commentator on the situation. This doesn't alter the fact of his extremely useful, patient, neutral, efforts which I respect very much. My bias: I use the BDORT, am convinced it works, I have always said so - my identity is public [103]. That said, I by chance discovered the original entry; an Admin at the time of the first edit wars told me if I truly want a neutral article then WP policies are my friends. I think this true. I want a basic NPOV, no WP:OR,'encyclopedic' informative entry. Even a stub I agreed to. The record shows that I have argued for this. The other parties are blocking this (which they deny). They have teamed up to evade the 3RR rule by out-reverting anyone, including the last Mediator - their strategy to stall and keep this version[104] up at all cost and 'discourse' endlessly while it remains. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is not the place to debate; but complete misrepresentation(again) provokes a response: I never used sockpuppetry; neither purposely deleted Talk page info; my personal details are public; in one case that I considered that Crum375 slandared me, I sent a message to Wiki tech people to ask it be permenantly removed; I of course know that deleting Talk page info is useless for any reason. That's the actual record. Re 'me calling the Admin a lackey' - please actually read the actual words I wrote that Crum375 links to. Thanks.Richardmalter 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Che Nuevara

I began mediating the Omura case after User:Aguerriero left Wikipedia (?). Richard, Crum, and I discussed some avenues to explore and began discussing the disputed material. The discussion was long and tedious, and yielded little if anything, but was civil. During that time, Rat resurfaced as his provocative account Whiffle, but relented that strategy and joined the discussion as TheStainlessSteelRat. Eventually we came to the conclusion that agreement between the involved parties was unlikely and we considered putting up an RfC.

A couple of offers were made by outside editors to draft a stub, but these never came to fruition.

Then I was away for about a week (week of USA Thanksgiving) and, when I came back, the situation had regressed to a revert war. A very basic stub had been produced -- I'm not sure by whom -- which I attempted to encourage work from, but both sides pushed in opposite directions towards other versions they preferred. Eventually, with no reasonable end in sight, I decided to close the case as unworkable.

Despite Richard's stated intention to continue appropriating my words, I do not believe that Crum is solely to blame for this conflict. I believe that all parties with whom I dealt in the mediation (I had no contact with Philosophus) have, at some time or another, edited tendentiously, edit warred, failed to act in good faith, displayed incivility, and the like. I do not hold Crum to be the reason that the mediation case could come to no reasonable end; I ended the mediation because no avenue available could reach agreement between these editors.

I will detail specific incidents, with diffs, in a formal statement if this case is accepted.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Statement by Philosophus

This dispute has a rather long and complex history, and so I thought I would write a preliminary statement on its history. The dispute started on Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which was created by SnarkBoojum (possibly an account of GenghizRat?) a few days after the account was created, as a short stub linking to the NZ tribunal findings and giving a short description of the test, from a somewhat mainstream point of view, classifying it as pseudoscience. A month later, RichardMalter came to Wikipedia, and as his first edit (I assume 203.220.167.134 is RM), proceeded to completely change the article to be sympathetic to Omura and BDORT, and to refute the NZ findings by saying that it was biased and Gorringe was not using BDORT properly (though no sources were given for this). The essential disagreement has not changed significantly since then, though the BDORT article was merged into Yoshiaki Omura. It has principally consisted of Richardmalter (aka User:RichardMalter and a few IPs) and allies pushing an article discounting the NZ tribunal findings and praising the technique and Omura, using Omura's website and writings as sources, and GenghizRat (who has used various accounts in the past for complex reasons) and others (myself, Crum175, SlimVirgin for a time, ...) pushing an article based heavily on the NZ findings being one of the only reliable sources. Crum175, if I recall, originally came to mediate, convincing me to remove the Pseudoscience category, but ended up joining one of the sides.

As GenghizRat noted, I nominated the article for deletion very early on. The nomination, and subsequent withdrawal, were due to the NZ tribunal findings. In the version I initially read, the findings were not referenced, and the article thus, in my opinion, could not satisfy WP:V as there were no reliable sources to provide for verifiability. When I later found that reference (we have just now found another tribunal report as well, making for two reliable sources from a medical standpoint), I realized that the subject was in fact notable and not just the vanity article that the contemporary revision seemed to be, leading to my statement that GenghizRat quotes. I now believe that the subject easily satisfies WP:V and thus WP:N, but this is due to the NZ findings alone. Without those, the only medical sources are those written by proponents of the technique in journals run by themselves or other proponents.

This statement is certainly not my actual statement, and I will prepare a statement which will include my opinions on the matter and its relation to policy. I see this request for arbitration as being necessary to give support to the following policy idea that Che brought up - that even if the only reliable sources give a negative viewpoint, unreliable sources should not be used to balance the statements given in the article. --Philosophus ^T 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved user:Cowman109

I believe that this case has issues of WP:AUTO and multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to address. Mediation has failed to produce any positive result due to strong disagreements by the opposing parties, so an arbitration case to determine what the cause of the potentially tendentious editing and edit warring is and how to remedy it would be beneficial, as the disputes between the parties has made it impossible for any progress to be made on the article despite numerous blocks for 3rr violations and full protection of the page. Cowman109^Talk 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by GenghizRat

This entry’s history reflects a persistent and determined effort on the part of advocates of Yoshiaki Omura’s practices, of whom the most visibly and consistently determined is Richardmalter, to shape the entry in their favor – or, failing that attempt, at a minimum to remove or recast available, verifiable information which they find other than to their liking.

The entry was first created in stub form 20060411. As noted by Philosophus, IP 203.220.167.134, which resolves to APNIC, Australia, therefore likely RichardMalter, first touches the entry on 20060515 [105], changing neutral statements such as ‘claims’ or ‘asserts’ to read instead as simple declarations of fact as to Omura’s claims and methods. These changes are reverted by Will Beback [106].

Philosophus proposes AfD based on non-notability 20060516 [107]. In the course of a brief discussion RichardMalter argues 'The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc,’ and further asserting ‘What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors.’ Richardcavell, per his user page a physician, observes: *Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep.' [108] Philosophus withdraws his AfD request 20060523 [109], stating ‘After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought.'

20060522 separate entries on Omura and Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test are merged [110] by Karada.

20060522 SlimVirgin addresses a number of matters relating to the entry [111]

20060619 the entry is again nominated AfD, by myself [112]. ‘The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious.' Xoloz [113]

20060706 Icaet [ICAET is the abbreviation of Omura’s ‘Internation College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics] edits the entry in Omura’s favor without comment. [114]

20060718 Telomere+ edits the entry in Omura’s favor with the observation ‘(The above six paragraphs were inserted as an edit by a student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000, and Dr. Omura’s voluntary assistant since 2005; the content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as his personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.)’ [115]

20060722 Fjagod02 [‘Filip Jagodzinski' is listed as ‘Editorial Associate’ of Omura’s ‘Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research: The International Journal’ [116] edits the entry massively in favor of Omura . [117]

20060722 IP 162.84.209.147, which resolves to Verizon NYC, edits the entry in Omura’s favor [118] and is reverted by Spondoolicks.

20060722 Fjagod02 again massively edits the entry in Omura’s favor [119]

20060725 Fjagod02 edits out reference to the New Zealand Tribunal [120] and is reverted by Philosophus [121].

20060726 Telomere+ edits the entry to excise the New Zealand Tribunal’s statement re BDORT [122]

20060906 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal [123].

20061009 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal [124] and is reverted by Spondoolicks [125]

20061202 IP 24.39.123.238, which resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a series of massive Omura-favorable edits on the entry [126] resulting in banning.

20061203 IP 24.136.99.194, which also resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a similar campaign [127] also resulting in banning.

20061214 IP 162.84.148.182, which resolves to Verizon NYC edits the entry in support of IP 24.39.123.238 in further support of Omura's claims[128]

I believe that consideration of this history and its supporting diffs, combined with consideration of the information presented by others, will strongly suggest the desirability of further consideration of this entry and the issues it raises as well as patterns of conduct of advocates of Omura and his teachings and practices.

I will be more than happy to assist in that process as well as I am able. GenghizRat 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

OK, I cleaned up this request in a pretty large manner, so I apologise if any meaning was lost. I removed some threaded discussion regarding the long list of double-indented parties, which can be seen here.[129] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Richardmalter, please provide a statement within the next 24 hours or I will remove the request, and you may refile whenever you are ready. If you have problems with this, contact me or one of the other clerks directly. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter is currently blocked, which explains his lack of a statement. --Philosophus ^T 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. He can use his talk page or e-mail me or wait til his block expired. I thought he just might not be ready to go forward. Thatcher131 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Rgfolsom, Smallbones

Initiated by --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Smallbones

Confirmation that other steps in have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Socionomics Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter

Statement by Rgfolsom

After a dispute with User:Smallbones regarding Socionomics, I requested a mediation that has failed. The dispute followed me to Robert Prechter (the biography of a living person), and affects several other articles. I request arbitration.

This is not a content dispute. In the evidence pages I will detail how Smallbones violated several core Wikipedia policies:

1. A pattern of bias in articles related to technical analysis, manifested by edits that do not adhere to a NPOV. These edits were labeled as such and considered disruptive by contributors to those articles. The bias also appears in Smallbones' different tone in the edits to articles on fundamental analysis. (Definitions below.)
2. Incivility toward contributors to articles related to technical analysis, plus harassment and personal attacks against me for the stated purpose of stopping my contributions.
3. Abuse of the mediation process in order to continue the personal attacks and biased edits.
4. Overtly negative edits to the biography of a living person: smears, demonstrable falsehoods, and a calculated overemphasis on quotes of critics.

To understand the bias I allege, I respectfully ask that arbitrators grasp the difference between "technical" and "fundamental" analysis. One description is here. Put more succinctly, fundamental analysis says that "externals" (e.g. news events) drive financial markets, while technical analysis says that "internals" (e.g. sentiment) drive those markets.

This distinction can seem arcane. Yet the debate is a real one and is argued vigorously at all levels of finance, from millionaire traders to Nobel laureates. That said, the evidence page will speak for itself.

As for myself, my contributions have mostly been to Elliott wave principle, Socionomics, and Robert Prechter. These articles were overrun with bias and had few if any active editors. No contributors were improving the articles in keeping with Wikipedia standards.

I welcome scrutiny of my history as an editor, particularly my contributions to Elliott wave principle and John Calvin's biography. [130] [131] I have shown that I can write a neutral text about thorny issues (Calvin), and write neutral articles where there is a potential COI (Elliott wave principle). I have expanded and included specifics for the "criticism" sections of articles with a potential COI.[132] [133] [134] [135]

I am a writer with a long-running financial column. My Internet readership runs well into the tens of thousands. I am an employee of Elliott Wave International; by using the handle "Rgfolsom" to contribute to Wikipedia regarding Elliott wave, it is self-evident that I did not intend to disguise my identity.

I deeply regret that my contributions were part of an edit war, and that my tone was sometimes less than civil. I trust that the arbitrators will recognize that the conflict is with this one other editor; Talk:Socionomics shows my painstaking attempts to satisfy his demands, and that I cited chapter & verse of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have let the mediator know that he is free to release all of my emails from the socionomics mediation.

Thank you. --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Smallbones

Smallbones' statement includes several claims that are contrary to the facts.

• He states that I "essentially" deny the applicability of WP:V, and that at some earlier point my citations were "all from Robert Prechter." These are the facts:

1. The first citation I included in Robert Prechter's biography was the New York Times.
2. Three of the first six citations I included were to credible third-party publications.
3. Ten of the 13 total citations I have included are to credible third-party publications (NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, et al.).

I did this because of the need for verifiability from neutral sources. And for the record, I have never said and do not believe that I am "the only person capable of editing the Prechter article."

• As the arbitrators are well aware, no editor can "threaten" another editor into the voluntary process of mediation. Indeed, that process is supposed to be a rational step toward resolving a dispute. To wit, the remarks about mediation we exchanged on the day before I made the request:

If you still find all of this to be unsatisfactory, then I think it's fair to conclude that we should go to Wikipedia with a request for mediation. Rgfolsom 16:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do request mediation if you'd like. Smallbones 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, is bizarrely ironic for him to claim that I "didn't discuss anything" during the socionomics mediation. Smallbones asked that the process be private, and I agreed (instead of insisting on the public exchange that I had requested first). Now I'm obliged to state what is beyond obvious: He cannot know what I discussed because my emails to the mediator were privileged.

• The mediation cabal request was filed on December 7; I did not "ignore" it, but spoke directly to the proposal:

You can take the mediation or mediation cabal route, but I suggest that first you do some more due diligence regarding Smallbones and me. You may save time that you'd later regret having wasted.

I was preparing my arbitration request to submit on the very next day (December 8), which I did. The socionomics mediator can confirm that my decision to request arbitration came as early as December 5.

As for Smallbones' other claims regarding my conduct, those I'll address in full with the facts I've prepared for the evidence pages. --Rgfolsom 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by CanaryInACoalmine

I attempted unofficial mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter but this has apparently failed. I tried to comment about the process and conduct of both User:Rgfolsom and User:Smallbones at Talk:Robert Prechter where the substance of my attempts at mediation can be seen. I have no interest in sponsoring one case or the other, but I found the conduct of both parties to be disruptive.

Smallbones was insistent on making his posts which sharply diverged from Rgfolsom's views. Rgfolsom aggressively and repeatedly removed anything that didn't meet his approval, as if he "owned" the article and ignoring many WP guidelines despite insisting vehemently that he compliant. Smallbones continued either to revert or to create new versions, none of which met with Rgfolsom's approval and triggered more nuclear responses.

Rgfolsom however has a material WP:COI since he is an employee of Robert Prechter. He has serially failed to address this issue (which in my opinion makes him ineligible to contribute to this article) preferring to continue to war very aggressively and to attack Smallbones personally; often these attacks were venomous and nasty. Of the few editors contributing to this article, most were aligned around Smallbones' view; none that I know of took Rgfolsom's side. However the apparent nastiness of the anger and energy that Rgfolsom invested in asserting control over the argument saw other editors fade away; Smallbones continued to make his case and this led to escalation of the edit war.

Lastly, it seem that Rgfolsom presumes that his understanding of WP rules has "absolute status" and that any divergent view must be ignore, attacked or silenced. However, he complains about the same behavior in others. This "asymmetry" is difficult to deal with as he rejects any attempt to discuss his tactics as being "discussing the editor and not the subject". My early attempts to do so were met with hostility, but only after I cited rules & guidlines from WP did this hostility reduce. I did not achieve successful resolution of discussing either eligibility under COI rules or behavior.

Regardless of the COI, I feel that both parties have violated many WP rules and guidelines and if forced to express a view I would say that Rgfolsom is the more culpable. I do not suggest that Smallbones is unimpeachable.

Please note, I do not endorse either view, but the direction of the conflict is clear. This my considered opinion. CanaryInACoalmine 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have updated my user page to explain that my sole interest is to mediate. I have no preference for which way arbitration goes, I just seek resolution. CanaryInACoalmine 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to statement by Dionyseus

Dionyseus, Punanimal is known to me but we are not the same person. I will also confirm that I used to edit the Socionomics article, when I was very unsophisticated in my understanding of Wikipedia. I have reflected much on this over the last few months, and have realised that WP is a valuable asset to humanity and that, probably, I suffer from the objectivity/subjectivity problem. I'm not sure I'd make a good editor for this issue, but mediation is something I feel capable of. This is why I have adopted a stance of "mediation only". Perhaps I should have pre-declared this, in the interests of full disclosure? If you feel that I am should therefore also be a subject of the arbitration places, then please feel free to pronounce your verdict. CanaryInACoalmine 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 19:40, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts

I would also like to note that I found my attempt at mediation very difficult, and will be happy no longer to be involved. It's been a learning experience, in many respects. I think my ambitions to be a general mediator will be short-lived and I intend to cease contributing to Wikipedia completely. I'll use my energies elsewhere. CanaryInACoalmine 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Smallbones

User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom a longtime senior writer employed by Robert Prechter and his “Socionomics Institute.” [136] Thus Folsom has a financial stake in the articles “Robert Prechter,” “Socionomics,” and “Elliott Wave Principle.” Socionomics and Elliott Wave Principle are marketing tools used to sell Prechter’s “Elliott Wave Theorist” investment newsletter, but they masquerade as scientific theories.

Folsom has been politely asked to refrain from editing articles where he has a conflict of interest. [137] [138]His explanations of his edits are almost always accusatory or contain personal attacks. He has reverted the last 9 edits in a row that I’ve made to Robert Prechter and 8 out of the last 9 edits I’ve made in Socionomics.

In one recent comment he essentially denies the applicability of the rules WP:V and WP:NPOV and basically states that he is the only person capable of editing the Prechter article. [139]

Socionomics is a non-scientific theory based on the Elliott Wave Principle. It has little or no support in the academic community, there are no peer-reviewed articles that use the term socionomics, and essentially everything published about it is self-published by Prechter. I’ve asked Folsom for examples of scientific acceptance and he has produced 4 (a footnote in a peer-reviewed journal, a vague quote from a popular science magazine, a conference paper from a Prechter employee, and 2 questions accepted for a political science survey).

While getting this information on scientific acceptance, made clear he was not going to accept the word “non-scientific” in the article and threatened me with mediation. He did not mediate in the sense that he didn’t discuss anything. If the committee for some reason wants to look at Folsom’s e-mails, they should also look at all 10 of my e-mails with the mediator.

In the Prechter article, he refuses to let a quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal in. The quote is paralleled by a quote from Fortune, which he cuts out as well. When I put in 9 citations (Business Week, Esquire, more Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, etc.) he says there are too many citations. He has improved his own citations recently. Previously they were all from Robert Prechter, now there are a few minor business publications among them. Anything that can be viewed as criticism of Prechter, Folsom cuts or cuts down to a minimum and puts at the end of the article in a small section called criticism.

Folsom has turned down the chance to mediate this through the mediation cabal, by simply ignoring the request.

I do get angry when Folsom denies me the opportunity to edit his “boss’s pages” and I apologize for my anger. Smallbones 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

addition Given the behavior of the 'mediator' which only draws attention to himself and away from the main points, I'll ask that this RfA be strictly limited to issues involving user:Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus

I noticed that an anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement. [140] I was about to revert it, but then I looked at the anon's contribution history and it revealed that the anon has an interest in the Socionomics article just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. Further investigation revealed that the anon had edited User:Punanimal's userpage. [141] User:Punanimal allowed for the edit to remain, [142] this suggests that the anon and User:Punanimal is the same person. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because a look into User:Punanimal's contribution history reveals that the user has an interest in the Socionomics and Robert Prechter articles, just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. What made me more certain that these three users are the same person is that just minutes after the anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement, User:CanaryInACoalmine apparently logged in and modified the statement, using the same edit summary that the anon used, and modifying the signature replacing the anon ip with his own. [143] Dionyseus 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The links [144] and [145] from User:Dionyseus's statement above do not work. 67.117.130.181 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Threaded discussion in Dionyseus's statement section by CanaryInACoalmine has been moved to a subsection of CanaryInACoalmine's original statement, entitled "Reply to statement by Dionyseus". Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Re: Rgfolsom, Smallbones

I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.

Happy Holidays,

Smallbones 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When the case is opened (likely 24 hours from now), you can place a motion for continuance on the workshop page. Thatcher131 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). [146] (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link [147].) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted, since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --NuclearZer0 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First time I've noticed proposal for link in question was around memorial. Notion reoccurred last month. As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right… …from more than one perspective I'm afraid. Lovelight 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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