Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:42, 31 October 2008

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Current requests

User:Kuban Kazak's stalking and harassment

Initiated by Hillock65 (talk) at 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Hillock65 (talk · contribs), filing party
Kuban kazak (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

User talk:Kuban kazak. 04:34, 30 October 2008

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hillock65

There is evidence that User:Kuban kazak has been following my edits on Wikipedia with an explicit aim to start edit wars and harass me. I am not a frequent contributor to the English Wikipedia, however, many of my edits in this community are followed by Kuban kazak and edit wars are initiated: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. There have been numerous attempts on my part to deal with edit warring, including an RfC and a MedCab. In every instance of edit warring initiated by this user, it is me who attempts to start discussion on the talk pages and provide sources[7], whereas he makes every effort to stall any possibility of a compromise. Constant edit wars almost everywhere where I attempt to edit articles on Eastern European topics are indicative of the pattern of harassment this user has adopted in relation to me. As well, this user has a history of recruiting revenge squads at the Russian Wikipedia to come and harass me at the English Wikipedia.[8]. An attempt has been made to deal with this issue in RfC and even though his call to arms at the Russian WP received no support, the issue of harassment and edit warring has not gone away and unfortunately needs to be addressed in ArbCom. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kuban kazak

Thoughts from AGK

I'm surprised to see this matter hasn't been presented to the community for general behavioural checks—eg., at ANI. Would it be worthwhile seeing what a stint on the noticeboards comes up with? The Community may well develop a solution that nips this in the bud much quicker than a full ArbCom case would.

Having said that, harassment is an inherently poisonous phenomenon; I would not be adverse to seeing this case accepted simply due to the nature—occasionally, quick intervention and resolution is best. AGK 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mariah-Yulia: Discussion on the case stalled, but there was a MedCom attempt at resolving the dispute, yes. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. I Mediated that case for the Committee, actually. Small world, eh? AGK 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion stalled? You will have a feeling of deja vu soon ;) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Mariah-Yulia

Was the request to submit Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line to the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee a succes and is/was the problem solved? Most Ukrainian/Kyiv metro stations (even the "very young" ones (like Chervony Khutir)) still have a Ukrainian and Russian name in there articles, was that the outcome/verdict of the committee? I can't comment if Kuban kazak/Hillock mediation has a point now without this information. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Mariah-Yulia

Looking at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop I got the idea that a arbitration will lead to nothing but taking time away from writing articles. Almost all the mayor "players" from the Piotrus 2 Workshop have reacted swiftly at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kuban Cossack and never ending edit wars. I think a "Workshop" about Kuban kozak will lead to the same effects (with the same editors) then the Piotrus 2 Workshop being: no results and everybody frustrated (the fact that Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line also led to nothing also formed this thought). I don't want to be a part of that kind of nonsense, I rather write articles... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Russavia

Whilst I am reasonably new to this area of WP editing, I have obviously taken the time to familiarise myself with others who edit in this area, their interests, their style, etc; and I can say I am familiar with KK's edits on mainspace. I am not completely familiar with Hillock65. I have gone thru the previous "attempts" at mediation also, and have come to the conclusion that this is not warranted for Arbcom.

Hillock refers to an RFC and Medcab above. If we look at the article in question, Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, it appears that KK and Akhristov worked on this together (with some edit warring), and the dispute that arose was whether Russian language names are suitable for "Ukrainian" topics. Hillock prior to that dispute doesn't appear to have edited any articles relating to Metro topics before this, and it appears that his intervention was due to this message left for Hillock65 on the uk:wiki (in which he calls KK a rabid Russian nationalist), so it appears that Hillock65 had no place in that dispute, except for his being canvassed by another editor to get himself involved; the dispute being hijacked as a result. Before Hillock initiated the medcom request, he filed an RFC against KK, which appears not to have been anything but an attempt to corner and get rid of an opponent.

The AN/I comment by KK may demonstrate that Hillock's editing pattern on en:wiki is somewhat limited to interwiki links and perhaps stalking of KK's edits; for example: [9], [10], [11]....the list goes on, but a pattern has emerged; KK would make an edit to an article, which he would be familiar with. Hillock would immediately revert, provoking an edit war, and takes an uncompromising stance; for example Talk:Ukrainians in Russia#Kuban section and neutrality when KK presented sourced material to Hillock, he removed it completely, not even bothering to check it; when User:Faustian re-presented it to Hillock, he accepted KKs version. It appears the only way Hillock can compromise with KK is when a third party (often an Ukrainian editor) repeats what KK has said. Thus, are we to say that it is KKs additions that are not justified and warranted?

KK has a huge number of contributions, has written countless articles from scratch, and for that, despite sometimes holding opposite viewpoints on history and politics to many Ukrainian editors, he has been able to get on perfectly with the majority of them. Indeed, as KK pointed out on AN/I out of the six barnstars, four were given by Ukrainians, that is at a time that Hillock was unable to get on with any editor (including non-Russian ones) that opposed him. At the same time, KK has been a somewhat stabilising force in the Ukraine-Russia area over the edits of his that I have familiarised myself with.

In regards to the edits picked out by Hillock above, using Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant as an example, I have reverted Hillock's removal of the Russian name out of the lead; this appears to be a major thing with Hillock, in that perfectly legitimate insertions of Russian language names are removed, in what appears to me to be a desire to rid legitimate entries of Russian from Ukrainian-related articles. So I think, that this arbitration request should be looking at some severe issues that Hillock has, instead of simply being an attack on and an attempt to get rid of an opponent that is clearly what he is trying to do. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Biophys

Kuban cossak is a very patriotic Russian user. He even edit warred recently with User:Irpen over placing an image of hanging rope for president Saakashvili (the Russian text under the image means: "Mikhael, I am waiting for you..." [12]). I have also observed his editorial conflict with Folantin and two other users, when Kuban cossak was apparently involved in misrepresemtation of Russian language sources [13]. The subject of the dispute: Kuban cossak, aided by banned users User:M.V.E.i. an User:Miyokan, tried to prove that Chechens had accomplished a genocide of Russians, in spite the facts that it were actually Chechens who have been deported by Stalin to Siberia [14]. On the other hand, he is probably not that bad as User:Faustian said here. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Folantin

I'm unaware of the details of this particular case but I second Biophys. I've edited many of Wikipedia's "trouble spots" and I can safely say Kuban Cossack is one of the most tendentious users I've come across. He seems to have a massive grudge against the Chechens for one thing. As Biophys says, he edit-warred to insert material on Chechen people which completely misrepresented the Russian-language sources he gave. Later, he planned to add the following sentence to the article: "The Chechens were known for their bitter savagery against the Russian military, and civilian population during their raids”. Unfortunately, I was unable to find one single reference to the Chechens in the English-language book he cited as a source for that. If this is an example of his work, then I'm not sure how far I'd trust any of his other contributions. The threat to hang President Mikheil Saakashvili on his user page is a further indication he's here to violate WP:SOAPBOX. --Folantin (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Durova

Due to the language issues raised, particularly the concerns about proper sourcing, this might be a matter better handled by the Committee than by the community at large. During the Franco-Mongol Alliance case there were sourcing issues and the Committee consulted uninvolved multilingual individuals to get an independent assessment of relevant claims. AN or ANI wouldn't have the capacity to evaluate fairly and objectively, unless policy violations (in English) were so straightforward that no other metric were necessary. Durova^Charge! 11:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Comment: Leaning toward accepting the case since other steps in dispute resolution (RFC/user, mediation) have not resolved the conflict. But I want to wait another day to give more users a chance to make comments first. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It seems likely the Committee may be able to clarify the issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim in the matter of Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale

Initiated by Adraeus (talk) at 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Adraeus (talk · contribs), filing party
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation of notice

Deacon of Pndapetzim—11:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of alternative dispute resolution

No formal attempt at dispute resolution was made due to the defendant having status as an administrator and due to the combativeness of the defendant.

Statement by Adraeus

On October 1, I researched the subject and found numerous sources. The information I found was then included in the article with complete and proper citations. On October 27, the administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted the entire article, asserting "rv mass edit ... sorry, most of this is historical nonsense". Deacon made no attempt to explain his actions. In response, I reverted his reversion as vandalism, where vandalism is defined as willful wanton and malicious activity, and made my intentions to seek arbitration on his talk page should he persist in such activity. The following day, on October 28, Deacon reverted my reversion, adding a comment to the article's Talk page where he labelled my researched and cited material as "historical fiction," and proceeded to fallaciously "appeal to authority" without any argument of substance or civil request for discussion. Despite being an administrator, Deacon is apparently unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I again reverted his reversion as vandalism. Adraeus (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." [Latter emphasis added.] This policy burdens Deacon with the responsibility to prove that the sources used are unreliable. Adraeus (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Statement by user:Scott MacDonald
I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004. Every article on a corporation in Wikipedia features my work. You've been an editor since May 2008. Who's new now? Nice try. Adraeus (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Lol ... why is this guy being allowed to waste the time of so many users. Can someone just block him for tendentiousness? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Jehochman
Clerk Note: Comment moved from Jehochman's section; "At Jehochman" text added. Keep comments in your own section please! AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree. Too many good users are wasting too much time on tendentious mediocrity like this. The user has used his allotted community time for this trying (in good faith I'm sure) to decrease the quality of an article, leaving absurd angry messages with accusations of vandalism and threats [to file this] after one revert, and then to file an arbcom case itself without ever posting [under that name] on a talk page. Ridiculous, and it's actually, after your own words, "pussiness" in the respectable part of the community which allows this nonsense to take place. They can be good-faithed or trollish behind a block without bothering anyone else. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:angusmclellan

Unless the committee is minded to rule on whether Bernard Burke's A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire (ca. 1866) is to be considered a reliable source, and to be preferred over the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, there's not much to be done here. This'll be a content dispute. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Scott MacDonald

Hm, prior to filing this case, the user had never posted any comments to the talk page of the article concerned. I'm calling for a speedy close here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad. When the sources conflict one needs also to look at how recent they are. On an article on the shape of the earth, it is not neccessarily to treat different theories as a "conflict of sources to be recorded" if all the sources for one view date prior to 1492.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gazimoff

Firstly, being an administrator does not make one immune from other dispute resolution procedures. Other mechanisms such as requesting a third opinion, mediation, a Wikiquette alert or possibly even opening a request for comment would have been more suitable than opening a request for arbitration. As stated on the RfAr page, a request for arbitration is the last step in the process when all others have failed. That statement counts equally for all editors, including those who carry out administrative duties.

Seccondly, this appears to be primarily a content dispute, particularly the introduction of material from disputed sources. It may be more appropriate to discuss the problematic source on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, or with the support of a relevant Wikiproject, in order to resolve the content issue. Edit warring or reverting is not the optimal method of resolving these disputes, as it does not resolve the underlying issues. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Lolling at people is not helpful. If they are a good faith user, it is dickish, and if they are a troll, it encourages them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key to controlling disruption is to be perfectly polite while doing what is necessary. If there is habitual disruption from a user, leave me the evidence and I will stop it, one way or another. Jehochman ^Talk 11:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Bishonen

RE statement by Adraeus.
Don't bite the newbies.[15] You've obviously upset poor young Scott MacDonald, shame on you. Be nice to the newbies! Bishonen | talk 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Some comments shuffled. Keep comments in your own section, please. AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject. Primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page or through a content RFC. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per FloNight. As an observation on the content dispute for what it is worth, if there is a genuine division of opinion on a historical issue among reliable sources and bona fide scholars, then that should be reflected in the article. On the other hand, if an assertion is asserted by only one marginal source, then it would be undue weight to overemphasize it. Which of these situations, if either, applies to this article is a matter to be decided by the editors involved, using content-related dispute resolution if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. This is primarily a content dispute; however there does seem to have been a failure to assume good faith here. Editors should be extremely cautious about reverting changes and describing them as "vandalism" unless there is a good ground for determining that they are not good faith attempts to improve the article. As far as conflict of sources go, that is a complex matter. If a normally reliable source is clearly in error then it is often best to explain it in a footnote. Where there is a non-obvious error then it is sometimes clear which is the more reliable, and to give that precedence in the article but then to state the disagreement. Finally I would note that 19th century genealogical guides to the British Peerage are notorious for accepting legend and myth as genuine family history and including it in entries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - I agree with Sam here. I've been surprised myself in this area, how faulty printed sources can be. At most the older claims are probably worth a footnote, unless (it's a big unless) there is really an active controversy outside the wiki about the facts. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun MBT

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Jauerback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
By78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Jauerback[16]
Ricky81682[17]
By78[18]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[19]

Statement by User:Chanakyathegreat

The earlier request was rejected on the basis of content dispute. This issue is going for many months and yet has not been solved. The main problem, which according to me is that the Admins not sticking to rules by not looking at the edit and the explantion on the subject but on the person making the edit. This lead to the Article which was a B-class article's quality being hit. There are grave errors in the article which was pointed out to the Admins and after repeated requests has not been corrected. One simple example can be the Summer 2006 of the talk page. Wanted to correct the article starting from this section onwards. Made a request on OCtober 8 and asked the Admins for their opinion. Till now I had not received a response. I made the edit after waiting for a long time(2 weeks). Instead of correcting the errors, reverted my edit and then blocked me for week. And also I would like to bring to the notice is that valid edits with sources that I make be it in the Arjun MBT article or another gets reverted back without any valid explanation or some invalid explanation. So I request the Admins being told to stick to the rules and check the validity of each and every edit and if they find any problem with my edit, to point it to me and ask explanation rather than revert it without any explanation. Also I would like By78 be told to engage in constructive discussion on the topic and not to derail the discussion with personal attacks and invalid arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to Ricky, I revert, but I am not reverting anymore and editing after asking for opinion. No opinion is given and gets blocked and my edit reverted. For what reason. Don't know. 2. Ricky says "Still no source for it?". The source[20] I also I did point out the same in bold in the talk page and if the Admins are not seeing it then it's not my problem. It's the Admins problem. And regarding the PIB link indeed its the report submitted by the Army to the parliamentary board. I have never asked for it's removal but asked for the inclusion of what parliamentary board said about the report. 3. I am not lying. Check the historical discussion between By78 and me. You will find that he wanted a single section and the trial failed. I was trying to explain that the ambiguity with two links one failed and one successful is because the first part there were problem with the Renk gear and after sorting it out has successfully completed the trials. I had repeatedly explained that it's part of one single AUCRT trials. Be it one section or two or many don't matter. But the chronologically the facts must be put in the correct manner. 4. I don't know why the complaint against a source from 2008 in the 2005 section. It contains information from the 2005 trials. After studying the subject, I came to know that the real problems with the tank existed till 2005. Hence don't want to do anything with the 2005 section.

I wanted to go section by section to clear the article of errors. Started with the Summer 2006 section and asked for a reply for the below proposal but did not got any and when I made the changes according to the proposal, I got blocked why? The Admins claim to act in a neutral way supporting a NPOV but I don't see that in their action. Whereas a person who want the article in the most NPOV and accurate with good sources is blocked and accused of not sticking to NPOV. Is this fair? Let's have a look at this. This can be seen in the Summer 2006 section of the talk page. Still got no reply. - The current edit is like this "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Check the link[21] which says. "Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." Here the user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. The second link[22] which is more accurate. It says "In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." Now for the final and ultimate proof, the Ministry of Defense Goverment of India Annual report 2006-07[23] which says "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006". Now the third link[24] can be disregarded since it's utterly wrong and says the Army says the trial failed whereas we have the Ministry of India report states that the trial was a success."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit after pasting the above said thing and waited for 2 weeks after informing the admins and asked their opinion. Only after not receiving their response for 2 long weeks, I went ahead to edit it. The Admins instead of admitting it reverted the edit and blocked me for a week. Is this fair? Is there anything incorrect in what I said or did?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an edit to the page. It has nothing to do with historical things in the page. It's the latest information about the tank. I am adding this new info into the tank page and I don't want the Admins to block me again for just making a good edit on the latest happenings with the latest source. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by By78

Please see Arjun talk pages (including archives). I rest my case. I will waste no more time on this subject. Thank you. By78 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

First of all, I think this is too preliminary for arbitration. We haven't even attempted 3O, let alone an RFC or mediation. I see arbitration was rejected in early September so unless the user conduct deserves it, I think it's again still just a content dispute, albeit more formed than before. Frankly, this is just related to User:Chanakyathegreat's aggressive POV, to the point of outright blatant misrepresentations. My first interaction at ANI was because Chanakya had been complaining about admins that had blocked him (and another who blocked again for continuing immediately after his block expired). His attitude then needed some work.

From there, telling him to stop reverting back months of work wasn't yielding anything.

I think this discussion is a microcosm of our problem. Chanakya claims a source is incorrect. I respond, "Because you say so?". Chanakya says, the committee says so (still no source for this). User:Jauerback offers an explanation. After another request for a source, Chanakya responds with "There's a saying. After hearing the whole of Ramayana, one asks what's the relation between Rama and Sita?" and goes on to something else.

My line in the sand can be found in the middle of Talk:Arjun_MBT#AUCRT_.282007-08.29. After I spent quite a bit of time reorganizing the article into a single chronological order, Chanakya claims that "it was By78 who insisted on a single AUCRT but now you want it to be separate". Only one problem: as I point out, Chanakya edit to "update" the article was an attempt to undo everything by re-merging the entire information about three different tests, covering two years at least. Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#Chronological_order with this question to him about the blurring of facts. I also warned him on his talk page (also because he absolutely refuses to properly indent his comments and/or sign things properly).

Chanakya responds to By78 that "The real reason for the incorrect version existence and you being able to insert stuff that are wrong is just because the Admins are hostile towards me and not sticking to rules.". Jauerback calls him out on this.

Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#July_2005 about sources from 2008 used in the 2005 test section which Chanakya refuses to acknowledge is blatantly ridiculous.

As you can see from this early September ANI report that all we seem to get from Chanakya are accusations that all the admins are biased to his neutrality.

I'm sorry that I haven't done too much of a compare with the article page (this was enough work for one night) but its history along with Chanakya's talk page (starting around here) should be sufficient in my opinion. I think it's time to put an end to all of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

There's too much history on the article's talk page, Chanka's talk page, and even other user's talk pages (including my own) to completely illustrate everything, but Ricky did a great job of summarizing it all above. I also don't think that arbitration is necessary. The whole crux of this problem is not about the Arjun article, but about Chanakyathegreat himself. This problem extends to other articles that Chanaka edits (Great power, Potential superpowers, etc.) as well.

Both Ricky and I came to Arjun article because Chanakyathegreat came to WP:AN and WP:ANI at different times complaining. The first time he had complaints of vandalization of the Arjun article and the second because of further vandalization and subsequesnt admin (me) abuse. I think we've both remained impartial and have done our best to mediate any discussion on the article's talk page. In the past, I've done my best to AGF, but as I recently expressed on Chanka's talk page, I feel he's a few edits away from receiving an extend block at this point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

My initial impression on reading the first statement is that this dispute is revolving around a problem editor, and the other statements seem to endorse that assessment. The community can probably sort this out if this is the case, but if there are multiple such editors, then this is going to inevitably end up here again. Regardless, I agree in part with FloNight's comments; what's needed is a form of RFC. Article RFC could help. If you need to make an RFC/U (which would also be helpful), a good guide on (what sort of diffs will be relevant and) how to present it overall can probably be found in an RFC/U that I've edited recently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Reject. Still primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. As noted above by Ricky81682 all the steps in dispute resolution have not been tried yet. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page through a 3O or content RFC. Or if needed mediation. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jauerback, maybe mediation or an RFC/user is needed instead of a long block. If that fails then maybe editing restrictions are needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I agree with FloNight's evaluation and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Flonight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Current requests

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Guillermo Ugarte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Guillermo Ugarte

I have a question concerning an ArbCom decision [25] and how it might apply to the article Bretton Woods II. On October 21, I made an edit to that article, which was only a few weeks old and described as a "stub." I added material from the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, an article called "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti." The article, which included an interview with Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, established that LaRouche had been a long-time proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept, and that Tremonti had been influenced by his ideas. I also added a link to LaRouche's original 1997 proposal which had been promoted world-wide, including by Ukrainian parliamentarian Nataliya Vitrenko. Here is a link to my edit[26].

I was surprised when two editors, Will Beback and Boodlesthecat, immediately removed this material, making angry and discourteous edit summaries[27] and talk page comments[28] to the effect that it couldn't possibly be true, that Corriere della Sera was not a significant publication, and that Tremonti was not a significant person. What followed was a series of messages on my talk page from Will Beback which I found very unpleasant because I felt that they were intended to intimidate me. He said that my edit had violated earlier decisions by the Arbitration Committee, specifically that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Looking back at my edit, I would say the following:

1. Corriere della Sera is the preeminent newspaper in Italy, so it could hardly be considered "work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement."

2. The Corriere della Sera article establishes that LaRouche is notable with regard to the topic of Bretton Woods II (i.e., "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti") so the Bretton Woods II article may certainly be considered "closely related" to LaRouche.

3. Under the circumstances, it was not wrong to link to the original proposal of LaRouche, which predates other uses of the term by minimally four years.

Please let me know whether you disagree, because I have the impression that Will Beback is threatening to block me if I "repeat edits like that." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Nevard

Comment: Discussion of (ir)relevance of content on the talk page. John Nevard (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The ArbCom has dealt with three full cases related to the LaRouche movement and editing by user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK):

HK has been admonished, put on probation, blocked and eventually banned. On September 19, 2008, a checkuser found that seven active accounts active on LaRouche topics were sockpuppets.[29] Subsequent analysis at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky revealed that all of those accounts, plus others previously blocked, were socks of HK. Analysis further showed that after one set of socks has been blocked a new set appears a short time later. Almost every single "LaRouche editor" has turned out to be a sock of HK. (A few have been socks of user:Cognition, and a few appear to be other people.)

The contested edits [[30][31] by this brand-new account placed LaRouche at the center of a proposed international conference, based on a single comment by an Italian finance minister and supported by citations to the Schiller Institute. This is exactly the type of promotion that was covered in the previous requests for arbitration. For example, another initiative of the LaRouche movement is something called the "Eurasian Land-Bridge", basically a network of highways and railroads. When a new highway was proposed in Asia, HK sought to show that LaRouche's proposal had been adopted, even though the proposals bore only a slight resemblance.[32] HK used four sock puppets and two IPs to edit that article over a two-year period.

I don't object to a properly phrased and weighted summary of the Corriere della Sera article in Bretton Woods II, or to a link to the relevant LaRouche article. My warning to Guillermo Ugarte concerned using the Schiller Institute as a source outside of LaRouche-related articles, and promoting LaRouche beyond what is borne out by 3rd-party sources. He replied that he wanted the matter clarified, but refused to discuss it with me.

I see no evidence of what Guilemro Ugarte calls "angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments". My postings to his talk page did not threaten him. User talk:Guillermo Ugarte#ArbCom decision I simply pointed out the problematic behavior and asked him to avoid making similar edits in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have now analyzed Guilermo Ugarte's contributions and find that they follow the same pattern as the HK socks. Based on that analysis, on the similarity of edits, and on the new account's arrival shortly after the blocking of previous socks, I am confident that this is another HK sock account. I can give more details by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

@@ Line 258: / Line 258: @@
 I see no evidence of what Guilemro Ugarte calls "angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments". My postings to his talk page did not threaten him. [[User talk:Guillermo Ugarte#ArbCom decision]] I simply pointed out the problematic behavior and asked him to avoid making similar edits in the future. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
+:PS: I have now analyzed Guilermo Ugarte's contributions and find that they follow the same pattern as the HK socks. Based on that analysis, on the similarity of edits, and on the new account's arrival shortly after the blocking of previous socks, I am confident that this is another HK sock account. I can give more details by email. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 ==== Clerk notes ====