Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tsunami Butler (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 8 April 2007 (→‎Socks & Seigenthaler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) at the request of Daniel Brandt[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not applicable, really

Statement by Daniel Brandt

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Wikipedia community" on Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

I am interested in either getting this block/ban lifted by the Arbitration Committee, or getting a complete statement from Gamaliel as to why the indefinite block was justified. If the latter, a statement from the Arbitration Committee that they concur with Gamaliel is requested. At that point, I will formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm or reject the Arbitration Committee's position.

This block has prevented me from expressing objections to my biography, in violation of WP:BLP. The initial impetus for Gamaliel's block, as far as I can determine, was that I had a template on my user page that pointed out a new law signed by President Bush in January, 2006. This law involves criminal penalties for certain types of online harassment. I maintain that it was entirely appropriate to point this out on my user page.


Comment by Doc glasgow

What is this supposed to achieve? I've always though that the desire of certain sectors of the community to paint Brandt as some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein hate-figure was crass and overrated his impact on Wikipedia. I'm also on record as believing we should delete his biography, as 1) he isn't that notable 2) he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have negative biographies of nonentities where they clearly object 3) I hate the bloody-mindedness that seems to want to spite and punish him by keeping it. Wikipedia isn't a role-playing game where we invent and fight imaginary daemons. Having said all of that, the notion that we resolve any of those issues by unblocking him is ridiculous. It just won't work, and isn't worth contemplating as a way forward.--Docg 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this ruleslawyering over whether this is a community ban or not is really just bureaucrapic nonsense. Unless we are really seriously considering that unblocking him might be an option, it is pointless. I'm not so much against unblocking him as certain that we are not going to do it. So, unless arbcom are willing to review the wisdom of the decision to retain his bio (and I'd love you to do that, but you won't) then there is sod all point in accepting this case. All we're going to have is more wikidrama then a return to the status-quo. Unless the committee is really willing to break new ground here (and you won't be), then just reject this and be done with it.--Docg 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Sir Fozzie's remarks below perfectly sum up the problem. A myopic and obsessive concern for the in-house role-playing game and that its sacred procedures aren't threatened by some dark conspiracy of Fred Bauer and the 'odious' Mr Brandt.--Docg 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I share Doc glasgow's general view on this, but I recommend acceptance in order to find that the Brandt article should be permanently deleted. Brandt may be unbanned if there is reason to believe that he will not disrupt Wikipedia (I'm personally veering towards the "no" on this). --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous comment by PullToOpen

Once again, our community has been split neatly up the middle by the issue of this guy's article, let alone his ban. Although the article isn't specifically within the scope of this request (which is nothing but a ban appeal), I feel that the scope of this arbitration case should be expanded to include it. We ought to put this issue to rest so we can stop bickering about it and get back to work with the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that the ArbCom hear this case. // PTO 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I wasn't as into the minutiae of Wikipolitics when this ban went down. Thus, I don't know the context of the legal threats, and I'm not sure if they existed, still exist, or will come in the future. With this said, I urge acceptance of this to review the situation and either affirm the ban in place (which is not a "community ban" as we know it or as really understood), or overturn the ban that's in place as improper. There's probably a logical fear of repurcussion if anyone does anything regarding Brandt or his article at this point, so to expect an admin to step up and unblock him to overturn the "community ban", as FloNight (talk · contribs) puts it, is (IMO) improper and expects more than anyone really should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)

I feel that there is an urgent need to state my support of Doc's position.

In my view, there is no need or cause to consider Mr. Brandt's direct request to be unblocked, because arguing his position out on the Wiki is not the correct forum for complaints by the subjects of our article and he has in the past demonstrated himself to be a disruptive editor. However, the arbcom need not limit itself to directly doing as Brandt asked or nothing: There is clearly an underlying issue at play here involving the conduct of many in Wikipedia's editing community over which the Arbcom has suitable jurisdiction.

I am very concerned that the offhand dismissal of this complaint send the wrong message about the official position Wikipedia's community leaders on Mr. Brandt. Furthermore, this rejection by arbcom leaves Mr. Brandt little further recourse beyond litigation against the editors of Wikipedia, which would be significantly against our own interests ,and the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be unsuccessful but would be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time.

A significant number of Wikimedians believe that Brandt's article is so bad that it must be deleted, but not enough yet to get the supermajority required to actually keep it deleted. It seems that because some Wikimedians have decided to use the article as an example of our independence and freedom of speech that no consensus can be achieved.

Mr. Brandt has made an effort here, respecting our community with an olive branch by appealing to the English Wikipedia's designated highest power over the community (vs the foundation which avoids community involvement). We should not disrespect his efforts with such a curt dismissal.

Finally, since arbcom desysoped some of the Wikipedia admins who would keep the article deleted, it can be argued that the arbcom is a primary cause of the articles continued existence. I do not believe this was the arbcom's intent, so an actual judgment on the article and the editors surrounding it might be useful. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

I am very concerned that this is an attempt to do an end run around the consensus of the community on the countless number of properly closed AfD debates, in an attempt to delete an article they have a problem with. Mister Brandt has always had a method to deal with BLP violations, despite his banned status, and that is to email the WP Foundation. That does not change, no matter how odious the behavior of Brandt and his supporters. Mister Brandt has had numerous opportunities to work WITH WP, and chose not to. Indeed, he is the lead behind the "Hive Mind" site and Wikipedia Review, two organizations inherently inimical to Wikipedia. I urge the ArbCom to reject this ArbCom request, reject the attempt to cynically circumvent WP procedures to delete Mister Brandt's article, and to affirm his Ban. SirFozzie 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

ArbCom should accept this as it is the only avenue of appeal. Rarely will an admin undo another admin's action as it is potentially a wheel warring situation. The main question is what will Daniel Brandt contribute to the project that justifies the unblock? If it is to provide input/guidance on privacy as it relates to biographies and to give input on various BLP's and policies, I think his unblock is warranted and should be welcomed. If it is to simply edit his own biography, I don't think his unblock will last very long. --Tbeatty 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

Mudaliar-Venki123

Initiated by Venki at 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Months of discussion on the article talk pages for over 5 months.
  • Request for Comment posted in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex [3] created by User:Dina [4]

Statement by Venki123

Discussion, edit warring, Protection, sock puppetry, 3RR , User:Block have been going on for over 5 months now at the articles mentioned above Mudaliar, Kaikolar, Sengunthar, Devadasi. RFC and Mediation were tried. However User:Mudaliar refused to take part in spite of advice from admin User:Dina.

Articles Kaikolar, Sengunthar Kaikolan, Sengundhar are the same and when they are being merged, User:Mudaliar prevents the merges partially and slanders the group Kaikolar/Sengunthar in these articles. In article Devadasi, the group Kaikolar are being slandered as the source of all Devadasis or temple prostitutes in India.

User:The_Behnam has been an observer for a short time.

Proof of protection by User:Dina - [5]

Proof of edit warring - [6]

Proof of 3RR- [7]

Proof of SockPuppets usage- [8]

Proof of UserBlock- [9]

Proof of Checkuser - [10]

Many steps have been taken to resolve the dispute about article Mudaliar, Kaikolar, Sengunthar, Devadasi with User:Mudaliar. The articles praise Thondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala without any proofs. The article slanders the group Sengunthar in the article Mudaliar and articles Kaikolar Devadasi and Sengunthar. The 4 articles Kaikolar, Sengunthar Kaikolan, Sengundhar are the same and need to be merged.

Statement by The Behnam

As I'm not expert in the subject, I've tried to follow as best I can and mediate between views, but it became too much me. I eventually asked for help (for Devadasi) on the Hindu and Indian noticeboards, and User:Bakasuprman seemed he would take up the articles, but it hasn't happened yet. Anyway, Venki123 and Mudaliar have been battling across a number of pages with no sign of resolution, and there appears to have been some issues of conduct coming up repeatedly. I'll give Venki123 credit for actually trying the Dispute Resolution process. At this point, I believe that Arbitration is the only place left for this dispute to go.

Statement by Mudaliar

  • Regarding article Mudaliar:I have backed up my statements with valid research papers and academic references recognized in India and at the International level. Note that the research has been done by authors from the US, UK, India etc. Venki123 (talk · contribs) simply vandalises my edits and also intimidates other editors by using with filthy and profane language
  • Regarding article Sengunthar: Again I have provided about 15 academic references and research articles.
  • Regarding article Devadasi: Once again I have provided ample valid academic references to prove that some Kaikolars were indeed dedicated as Devadasis and the relation between the two communities. Even The_Behnam (talk · contribs) has agreed that these are valid proofs. But Venki123 (talk · contribs) simply deletes the highly referenced sections or manipulates the names of the communities according to his own discretion.

Moreover, Venki123 (talk · contribs) is using socket puppets to push his point. He also has been abusing me and other users repeatedly. Please see below for yourself:

[23] See how he has deleted the entire talk page and replaced with his post. He is well aware that he should not delete other editors' posts in the talk page. He has just blanked out the talk page and replaced with a few sentences of his own.

  • Vandalism through socket puppetry: [24] Check ip:70.49.175.94. Luckily Agathoclea (talk · contribs) caught it and reverted his edits.

There are plenty more articles like the ones above where he uses extremely filthy language and threatens me. Venki123 (talk · contribs) is unable accept my references even though they are completely valid and were written by world reknown historians like Edgar Thurston, etc. who was a British Officer in Colonial India and was also the curator of the Indian Museum of History at Madras, India for a long time after Indian Independence.

Venki123 (talk · contribs) has been abusing me and other editors repeatedly and aims to divert this as a dispute when in fact the only thing he has been doing is vandalise articles and delete heavily referenced sections. Now, he is trying to get these articles protected and destroy the work of other editors who have taken time to add sources as these edits are not favorable to him.

Statement by WeldingVeerasamy

The below is my opinion (Weldingveerasamy 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)wedldingveerasamy -----[reply]

Venky is vandalising and does not believe in academic research or proper debate. I have given evidence on the use of Mudali Surname by Vellalars from Thondaimandalam Region with the only officially published Jaffna History Book. That is from an academic source only (that too a 14-15th century work of a Royal Scholar). He deleted that and inserted some rubbish that NO HISTORIAN OR RESEARCH WORK HAS HEARD OF. Please see history of his edits/vandal.

Another very important thing is a proper academic debate may not be possible with Venky. THis is because he has a tendency to get abusive at even scholars who publish works and individiuals and communities for no reason. Another sad part of his behaviour is he believes almost all Royal Families from the Persians to Pallavas to the South of Sri Lanka belong to Kaikolar Family. This would mean a drastic overhaul of all history books in South Asia and re-evaluating all the existing academic research. Its simply not possible.

I have absolutely no doubt user:mudaliar has used only referenced texts and his contents will stand scrutiny. At the same time going through the history of Venky it is obvious no serious academic debate can take place with him. I am willing to from my part furnish evidence of what I have stated that will stand academic scrutiny.


Thanks Weldingveerasamy 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)weldingveerasamy[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Soapboxing on the Armenian genocide talkpage and user:THOTH

Initiated by Fad (ix) at 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[26]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • THOTH was asked on countless numbers of times to stop. And other contributors will confirm this.

Statement by Fadix

This is not a personal vendetta against this user before I leave, but rather to put an end to THOTH repeated uses of the Armenian Genocide talkpage as a soapbox, all his contributions here on Wikipedia are limited in using that articles talkpage as a forum of discussion, talking about everything but the content of the article. Soapboxing was also one of the reasons why Francis has created a subpage for arguments having nothing to do with the article to be directed there. [27] His raising of irrelevancies over and over again is one of the reasons why a major improvement of the article is hindered. I had the intention of bringing this in the past, but since I have been harsh on that article against some members, I was concerned of getting a ruling on me preventing me to contribute on that article. But, now that I have nothing to lose, I am presenting this case. I don’t need to present any evidences at all so my banning won’t affect the case, the Arguments page created by Francis contains all the evidences needed, and its link has just to be placed at the evidence page, or basically ALL recent contributions by him. THOTH behaviour has also a lot of influence on other contributors as it brings others to use the page as a soapbox by answering him, I know of what I am talking about as I engaged myself in an interminable debates with him(months ago though) and others who were using the talkpage for the same purposes in the past, but at least in my case, it had a direct consequences with the articles content in many occasions. This will create a precedent for others who would be using the talkpage of that article as a soapbox, since basically soapboxing is the single major problem with that articles talkpage. Fad (ix) 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: I will not answer to accusations, but just to mention that if some insignificant soapboxing can get hearing from the Arbcom, I don't see how a long history of soapboxing in an articles talkpage can not. Which other article does have an argument section of things unrelated with the article itself? What other article did needed the creation of such a subpage?Fad (ix) 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More additional info: What is funny, is that you request help on various occasions, you are ignored, you then decide to do things your way, and you're banned for it. This article has gone RfC, peer review, a subpage was created to dump soapboxing in it(how is this not an indication that there is something really wrong?). It is probably one of the record keepers in soapboxing in the talkpage, which resulted with a creation of a section for soapboxing and which is used as a discussion forum. Premature what? The subpage was created because no one wanted to accept after various attemps to use the talkpage for what it was meant. And no, this is unrelated to the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict, it is about one articles specific talkpage and its uses as a soapbox.

Statement by THOTH

This is purely a personal matter between Fadix and I. (Actually it is Fadix attacking me pure and simple and nothing more). All of my comments on the talk page are directly relevant to the article and/or to discussions brought up in connection with the article. I have stated my position about editing the article numerous times and have explained my purpose in contributing on the talk page as a means to influence and attempt to prevent unsupported vandalism and editing that is clearly problomatic. I think I have done a service to Wikipedia in preventing problomatic extreme POV editing in the article and this should be clear for anyone who takes the time to scan over my many months/years of contributing here. Additionaly I often make constructive comments regarding article content and organization. It is absurd however to claim that I have actually hindered any editing to the article - I have hardly ever reverted any edits or anything of the sort. These charges are entirely spurious. Fadix wishes that this article be his own and he is overly critical of any who have any disagreement with him. He just wants me silenced. It is a personal vendetta. Furthermore he is upset at me as I revealed his attempts to get me to become some type of sockpuppet for him last year and I refused (and I revealed how he had gotten someone else to do such in my place). I feel that he very dishonestly presents himself (and I refused to get involved in his dishonesty so he is bitter) and he is also always making personal attacks against people and tries to involve others into his personal disputes. I have asked numerous times for him to leave me out of his personal issues here but he cannot seem to let it go. It is entirely a personal thing. He is just trying to get back at me. He is wasting my time and yours. --THOTH 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement/Question by Cool Cat

Shouldn't this be a part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan? -- Cat chi? 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by somewhat involved User:Aecis

I will not comment on the contents of this case, since I try to remain as neutral as possible with regards to Armenian Genocide. I do see that no prior steps in dispute resolution seem to have been taken. I urge the nominator to try other means of settling this issue first, and I urge the ArbCom to decline this request as premature. AecisBrievenbus 09:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

In response to Cool Cat's question, the Armenia-Azerbaijan case is well into the voting phase, and it would be very late in the day to add new parties, so we will leave this here as a separate request unless an arbitrator decides otherwise. Newyorkbrad 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Initiated by Cool Cat at 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  • Does not apply/involves entire community
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Case has been put to WP:ANB ([28]) , WP:VPP ([29]) and WP:RFA ([30])

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Cool Cat

I have summarized (please see that page) a number of graphs and the WP:AMS poll that had been around for quite some time. Based on my interpretations of the graphs, I concluded that the workload of admins (number of non-admin users, number of articles, number of edits) is on an exponential increase while the number of active admins are not.

If the graphs and discussions are any indication, current system is failing if not already kaput.

The community itself is unable to address and find a solution to the issue for quite some time now. There are lots of opinions of different people but no single majority. Due to this reason, I believe the Arbitration committee and/or Jimbo Wales intervention is necessary to find a solution.

I believe a solution attempt is worth a try.

-- Cat chi? 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform ? -- Cat chi? 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PullToOpen

The community has proven itself unable to come to some sort of consensus over the currently-screwed RFA. The ArbCom's last attempt at writing policy/process (Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy) didn't work out so well, and I'm thinking that the rule of few over many goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I hope that we'll be able to fix this somehow, but I doubt that arbitration will help. PTO 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc (as (un)involved as anyone else)

I've loads of sympathy with this. There are times when everyone agrees change is needed, but consensus on what the change should be cannot be generated - and is unlikely to be generated. A select group looking at this, on behalf of the community, with the authority to at least allow a trial of another idea, is perhaps worth a try. However, Arbcom don't currently have that jurisdiction. Perhaps it is time for the community to endorse a 'Policy committee', or at least a time-limited special commission on this issue, but I'm sure arbcom will not feel empowered to step up to it.--Docg 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

While I have a huge amount of sympathy with Cool Cat's ideas concerning adminship, the admin workload both present and future, and the exasperating failure on behalf of the community to fix the broken RfA system, this just isn't within the Arbitration Committee's remit. It can't be. For the Arbitration Committee to take on this role of policy arbiter is something that is probably a good idea, but would require community consensus in the first place, of which there is none that is self-evident. For the ArbCom to declare that they have jurisdiction over this kind of matter without any sort of community consultation wold be entirely inappropriate. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

Although I agree the ArbCom is the wrong body for this, someone needs to apply a plunger to RFA - and I do urge the AC to look over CoolCat's presentation with their "respected editors" hats on. The jawdropping idiocy of the "oppose" notavotes in the Danny RFA is symptomatic of the problem. But there are documentable and objective problems that have been especially apparent over the past six months - RFA is suffering the virtual committee problem. I'll see if I can get something together to run past people for sanity checking at the least - David Gerard 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nae'blis

While it is not ArbCom's place to make policy, experienced editors of many philosophical leanings have complained about RFA in recent years, only to have change stall out for lack of concrete, actionable proposals that gain community consensus. Durin suggested to me a SWOT analysis and in light of this Arbitration request being rejected, I'd like to ask anyone interested to assist there with an objective, productive look at the matter. -- nae'blis 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Colin Cowherd

Initiated by Bluefield at 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-06_Colin_Cowherd

Statement by Bluefield

The actions by BrutusBlow and STS01 on the Colin Cowherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page are unfair and inaccurate. They systematically edit out any criticism of Cowherd, despite the criticism being grounded in fact. Numerous sources have been cited for the current DNS controversy that Cowherd started on his radio show, but these are continually eliminated by these two editors. They do not appear to be abiding by the rules and goals of Wikipedia in so far as they have turned the Cowherd page into a slanted fansite.

Statement by STS01

This dispute is over as far as I'm concerned. The requestor submitted another edit that was nuetral and I left it on the article in question without modification and have already discussed this in the user talk page. --STS01 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Category:Kurdistan

Initiated by Cool Cat at 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) -- Cat chi?[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [31] - Baristarim notified
  • [32] - Bertilvidet notified
  • [33] - Bohater notified
  • [34] - Cool Cat notified
  • [35] - Francis Tyers notified
  • [36] - Khoikhoi notified
  • [37] - Ozgurgerilla notified
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Cool Cat

I have initiated this user conduct case request.

I strongly feel that there are serious verifiability issues with a number of subcats of Category:Kurdistan. I have tried to express this concern on a number of occasions via a number of medians. So far I have tried formal/informal mediation, RfC and lastly my recent attempt to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan.

Some of the users do revert me expressing that "there was no consensus to mass-remove the category from every page" - which is true in a sense given that the users are avoiding discussion and even expressing that they are "not having any discussions about it!"

I am trying to follow Image:Consensus new and old.svg but because users are avoiding any discussion and continuing to revert that became impossible. Overall this is being unproductive. In my opinion any category should have a solid and verifiable inclusion criteria.

-- Cat chi? 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that this arbitration case is intended to be similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan (though not as bad). While the underlying issue (content dispute) will probably not be solved with arbitration on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is being disrupted by this, and arbitration can and should put an end to that. -- Cat chi? 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample evidence: Arbitration should accept this case because the parties rejected mediation and all other discussion attempts.

Reverts below happened on a number of provinces and cities, I just cited a few examples.

Statement by Ozgurgerilla

Majority of the subcategories of Category:Kurdistan are notable and implications of the category. It is true that the subcategories need a clean up but disabling this isn't the right way in my view. The Kurdistan dispute is a long one and is accepted distinctive politically, geographically and demographically. It might not be an independent country but has a way of life that is expressed in those subcategories, were there is some that are inappropriate. I think it will be better if we let users clean up the category — which the amount of contributors to Kurdish related article are very low which may have caused Cool Cats disappointment of unproductivity.

Statement by Bohater

I join Ozgurgerilla. I think one other neutral User should cleap up. From my point of view Cool Cat try to delete all Kurdish subcategories because of the Turkish Part of Kurdistan. He understands all Kurdish cultural customs or names as political terms and try delete it. For example here: [[[38]]. it's almost incomprehensible why he describes these kurdish colors as ""ugly"". How can a Kurds feel then?. No,No!!. Please notice these in Cool Cat.. Thanks. --Bohater 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Penwhale

The underlying problem is that RfM and MedCab has both failed due to parties declining to participate. And then when an article is proposed to renamed and subsequently moved without consent only after 8 hours since the first proposal, there's something really wrong. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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

Tsunami Butler (LaRouche)

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. I would like to block the account indefinitely for acting to promote LaRouche, and would appreciate feedback from the Arbcom.

Tsunami started editing with this account in October 2006, and has made 300 edits to articles (600 in all), mostly to LaRouche-related pages in defense of LaRouche; 155 of the edits were to Lyndon LaRouche. S/he removes criticism of LaRouche from articles even when it's well-sourced, engages in revert wars to keep it out, and argues each and every tiny point on talk pages, even when the proposed edit is clearly in violation of the content policies. There are many examples of edits that violate the ArbCom rulings, but these two are illustrative:

  • On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [39] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [40] There are no reliable sources for the John Train Salon claim, which is a major LaRouche conspiracy theory, and which arguably defames a number of named individuals. Tsunami reverted twice when others tried to remove it. [41] [42] Talk page discussion here.
  • On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [43] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [44]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [52] Talk page discussion here.

I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [53] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to John Siegenthaler, writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [54]

The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [55] Seigenthaler has been attacked by LaRouche because of his early association with Al Gore, and Al Gore has become a LaRouche enemy because of his views on global warming. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [56] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [57] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.

To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of Jeremiah Duggan. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [58] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.

In case it's helpful, here's a previous request for clarification brought by Tsunami in January 2007, when she asked that the ArbCom rulings about LaRouche publications be repealed. Here are LaRouche 1 and LaRouche 2; Nobs01 also had some LaRouche-related decisions in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I feel that the above complaint is a wholly dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, by an editor/admin who has a reputation for using administrative bans to eliminate her opponents in content disputes.

SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King (Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)) and Chip Berlet (Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log).) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one [59].

Regarding her complaint about the John Train Salon, which she describes as a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," I would first like to point out that:

  • It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.
  • The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.
  • As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."

Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [60] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • "It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."
  • "The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."

"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [61] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."

This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [62] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{LaRouche Talk}}. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of Poisoning the well -- but in none of these cases have I seen any evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was User:ManEatingDonut) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of Political Research Associates, as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the WP:BLP policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.
I am not proposing that the LaRouche cases be re-opened. I am suggesting, however, that SlimVirgin's request to block me be seen for what it is: a tactic in a content dispute. This is an attempt to misuse admin authority and it should be rejected. --Tsunami Butler 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct just a few of the falsehoods that argue in favor of upholding the previous Arbcom decisions. I do not control the website of Political Research Associates; Political Research Associates has a staff of eight and has been relied on as a reliable source by major daily newspapers and in publications by academics; I am not the director of Political Research Associates, nor have I ever been; I have written extensively about the Lyndon LaRouche network, and and some of my articles appear in major daily newspapers and scholarly publications; I avoid citing my own work on Wikipedia whenever possible; all of the charges made by Dennis King and me are extensively researched and in most cases have been verified by other journalists who have had access to the original documents and former members. I believe that Tsunami Butler is not able to see these types of distinctions, and instead continues to post material that is not suitable for Wikipedia due to its uncritcal and credulous POV support for Lyndon LaRouche, his idiosyncratic (and frankly lunatic) ideas, and the slavish regurgitation of those ideas by his sycophant followers.--Cberlet 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Berlet may claim that he is just another employee at PRA, but in reality, he is the principal writer there, and is free to post anything he likes on the PRA website, such as this, a special page he set up for his disputes on Wikipedia talk pages. And like SlimVirgin, he slyly tries insinuate that the conflicts on the LaRouche pages are about editors making favorable assertions about LaRouche, when in fact, the conflicts generally arise in response to Berlet and King adding precisely the sort of invective you see in Cberlet's post above. --NathanDW 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I am only correcting false and misleading statements. I am one of five people at PRA who write articles for PRA and outside media. I am not free to post anything on the PRA website, we have a web editor, and a research director, and an executive director, all of whom can (and do) reject my proposals on a regular basis. The few pages (out of thousands) on the PRA website that mention Wikipedia and LaRouche were posted because a few Wiki editors were making false (and in some cases defamatory) claims about my work in my outside persona as Chip Berlet. Among these false claims were that I was inventing quotes attributed to LaRouche. This is false. I was finally forced to post actual page scans in some cases before these pro-LaRouche Wiki editors would admit the quotes existed, and even then some persisted in challenging the authenticity of the documents--a false claim that still continues today. The conflicts on LaRouche pages generally arise when pro-LaRouche editors such as Tsunami Butler and NathanDW uncritcally accept as true the relentless falsehoods and lunatic conspiracy theories propounded by LaRouche, (a convicted criminal, and "notorious antisemite,") and his followers. That this is so is shown by the posts above on this page. --Cberlet 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. This is not an appropriate forum for your soapboxing about LaRouche. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will stop posting comments here after this one which poses a legitimate question to Kirill Lokshin to which I would appreciate an answer here: Why is it acceptable for editors to call me a liar, falsely suggest I am part of a conspiracy linked to entries about LaRouche, and make false statements about my work and the organization for which I work; but when I post comments about LaRouche for which there is copious evidence in reputable published sources, (relentless falsehoods, lunatic conspiracy theories, convicted criminal, notorious antisemite) it is "soapboxing about LaRouche?" Can you consider for a moment that this is exactly the ongoing pattern of inverting reality, conspiracism, and muddying the waters with false claims originating with the LaRouche network that creates the disruptive situation on LaRouche-related pages? I think this is the crux of why what I am posting here is appropriate to the current discussion.--Cberlet 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing sources for an entry includes critically assessing its authors, such as you. Andries 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your comments are unacceptable doesn't mean that others' comments about you aren't as well—false accusations are, of course, inappropriate regardless of any other considerations—but the crux of the matter is that you are an editor here, and hence your behavior is of interest in examining what is occurring here as far as editorial activity is concerned. LaRouche, meanwhile, is not personally involved in the editorial process on Wikipedia, and thus any evaluation of him is entirely irrelevant outside of a discussion of what material articles dealing with him should contain. Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant comment

I really agree with SlimVirgin on this matter. We have been through this repeatedly. The past Arbcom decisions are really quite clear. This will happen again and again, and to open this Arbcom decision rather than enforcing it will waste literally hunderds of editing hours for no constructive purpose.--Cberlet 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by arbitrators

I think there are problems raised by Cberlet's behavior, I think he is not being civil; if we expect Azerbaijanis and Armenians, victims of mutual genocidal campaigns, to be polite to one another, we can expect Cberlet to extend a measure of courtesy to the LaRoachies, who as far as I know, haven't killed anyone. Likewise, while the cited quotations of LaRouche may be genuine, they are the product of original research, excellent research, to be sure, but he is not a special exception. The problem is that conflating problems posed by Cberlet's behavior with the problems posed by an editor who is to a certain extent mirroring the behavior of Herschelkrustovsky is not likely to be productive. SlimVirgin's actions and proposals are within the bounds of the prior decisions and are proper. Expansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable. If there are problems with Cberlet's behavior or editing they should be brought up in a separate proceeding by someone without the LaRouche axe to grind. That includes the anti-communist axe as well. Fred Bauder 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LaRouche may be used as a source on himself and his group, but may not be used as a source on anyone else. You were trying to use him as a source on the activities of people associated with the so-called John Train Salon, but LaRouche articles may not be used as an excuse to write about other people. The ArbCom has said: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles" (emphasis added). [63] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But if, as a corollary to your request, LaRouche and his movement are not permitted to respond to the vituperation from Dennis King and Chip Berlet that presently fills the articles about him, then it seems reasonable to me that the self-citing and other quotes from these two minor critics be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability. --Tsunami Butler 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for you is that they are widely regarded as experts. Dennis King has written the only English-language biography of LaRouche, and it's frequently used by journalists. Chip Berlet is a known and respected researcher, and a specialist on LaRouche. The BBC's flagship news program, Newsnight, used him last year when they were doing a segment on the LaRouche movement. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't rely for its coverage on the same experts that the rest of the Western media relies on? That's a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Given that they're widely acknowledged as experts, how do you suggest we handle their input? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, they should be featured at a level commensurate with their notability. Their commentaries seldom appear in the legitimate press. It has been suggested before that a good yardstick would be to cite them when their comments appear in major press, like the BBC show you mention, but not give them carte blanche to self-cite from the websites they either control or dominate. --Tsunami Butler 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even as this request for clarification remains open, Tsunami Butler is continuing to push a LaRouche POV. I recently added some material from the Berliner Zeitung, a perfectly normal mainstream German newspaper, to Jeremiah Duggan. The material was critical of LaRouche, including: "According to the Berliner Zeitung, 'next to Scientology, [the LaRouche organization] is the cult soliciting most aggressively in German streets at this time'." Tsunami Butler has now added her original research before that sentence in order the undermine the newspaper as a source: "The Berliner Zeitung has been the subject of controversy, because it is Germany's only British-controlled newspaper." [64]
This springs from the LaRouche view that the British establishment is out to get him, the Queen's advisers want to kill him, MI6 left a death threat in a woman's magazine for him a few years ago, etc.
I'm afraid I can't see any practical alternative to an indefblock here, because Tsunami clearly has no intention of stopping this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks & Seigenthaler

There appears to be more and bolder activity by LaRouche-related accounts in the recent weeks. Yesterday one of them, added extremely derogatory information about Al Gore[65] to a talk page along with a link to an article in LaRouche's Executive Information Review that includes a serious assertion tying John Seigenthaler to "the faction covering up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." I had to read that twice before I believed what I saw. There may be some sock puppetry going on. User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) had several well-established accounts later proven to be sockpuppets, one a female, so it wouldn't be beyond him to be behind some of these new accounts including Tsunami Butler. HK also tended to plagiarize and that seems to going on too. Back in January an editor using a new account added incorrect information, obviously copied from a LaRouche-movement newsletter.[66][67]

Regarding the proposed ban, Tsunami Butler appears interested only in pursuing one aim: promoting Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. Like HK, she engages in lengthy unproductive talk-page debates that never reach a conclusion, and engages in edit warring. She has "has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement", a finding of fact in HK's first ArbCom case.[68]. I suggest that Tsunami Butler has a style and behavior similar enough to HK's to warrant banning the account as a sockpuppet. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in response to SlimVirgin, objecting to edits by Dking and Cberlet does not constitute "promoting LaRouche and his ideas." In fact, since the policy violations by Dking and Cberlet are so rampant, I have often wondered why the two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, never take action against them (although I will concede that Will Beback did mildly chide Dking on his talk page for incivility.) The sock puppet allegations are a lame tactic. I'm sure that they can be disproved by Checkuser. I had never heard of Dr. Gary Carter until I read the above post. I have seen comments on talk pages by Nemesis, who appears to be a young person editing from Germany. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [69] to comical [70]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [71].
More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [72] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [73] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [74] [75] [76].
I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [77]
I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [78].
We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [79] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.
I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.
BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.
Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked[80] or warned[81] per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. DurovaCharge! 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the original article-ban remedy was applied to (among others named) User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204, as well as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." I suggest, unless the AC wishes to make a clarifying statement to some other effect (or the user(s) concerned wish(s) to appeal the original remedy), that the best course would be to have an uninvolved admin review the blocks, with particular regard to whether these are the same editor as sanctioned previously in a similar IP range, and/or have engaged in sufficiently similar behaviour to merit such sanction. Alai 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. That has already been done. This particular rabbit hole goes rather deep. DurovaCharge! 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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



Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=121195695"