Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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

See also

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

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Konstable

Initiated by wangi at 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Konstable (talk · contribs)
• Ryushort (talk · contribs)
• AltUser (talk · contribs)
• AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All user accounts notified via talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Konstable / AlternativeAccountK and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#User:Konstable

Statement by wangi

There's reason to remove the admin bit from Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Konstable / AlternativeAccountK.

Konstable has left Wikipedia for the time being, but in the process has used a number of sockpuppets (AltUser, AlternativeAccountK), got them banned (see block logs) and then used admin privileges to unblock one of the accounts. Edits and self admission show Konstable, AltUser & AlternativeAccountK to be the same user; check-user shows AltUser and Ryushort to be created from the same open proxy at the same time.

Statement by Moe Epsilon

I highly support the removal of Konstable's admin bit following the situation which occured.

Konstable created the account AltUser. He self-proclaimed on his userspace (no deleted) that he was in fact a sockpuppet (didn't mention who of). Meanwhile he made non-sense edits on his userspace like typing "ZOMG FUCK SEX FUCK SEX" (diffs deleted). While he was AltUser, he created controversy by closing multiple AFD's with the result of delete: [1] [2] [3] Now it's not against policy for non-admins to close AFD's, but closing them, especially in favor of deletion, is highly discouraged. Under the name AltUser, he began bickering with User:Ryulong about a 3RR violation he commited. Ryulong reported him on WP:AIV and he was eventually blocked.

CheckUser shows that whoever created AltUser also created Ryushort not long after. Ryushort framed User:Ryulong by stating that he created that account by saying it was a doppelganger of his [4] It turns out that he was not [5] Ryushort's IP was apparently autoblocked [6] because of AltUser's block.

AlternativeAccountK was created by Konstable and was used to bypass the block on AltUser's account. AlternativeAccountK admitted to using this account ot bypass a block on his previosu account although he was not specific. He began to edit disruptively again with Ryulong, Wangi and JoshuaZ. Wangi blocked him for avoiding a previous block (although he wasn't sure who was his puppetmaster). Konstable under his account with adminship unblocked AlternativeAccountK citing that his main account was not blocked, thereby proving his sockpuppetry. Wangi reblocked the sockpuppet and Konstable unblocked. A short time later Konstable finally blocked the account indefinantly.

Despite Konstable's original intentions asserted on his userpage (deleted revisions of his userpage saying he was AltUser), it is proven that he created 3 sockpuppets who despite original intention, was used to disrupt the Wikipedia community. Not only did he create two of those accounts in violation of WP:SOCK, he blatently misused his adminship bit to unblock them. I call for an immediate desysopping if possible.

Clerk notes

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

---

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Initiated by 195.82.106.244 14:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), signs as avyakt7

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes both parties- defendants are notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Direct discussion Requests for mediation - other party would not agree to third party involvement.

Statement by 195.82.106.244

"My request is simple. In Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is stated that the use of self-published or otherwise "dubious sources" in articles about the author(s) of such material is permitted within certain limited grounds, [7]."

An NPOV has occured, firstly, due to avyakt7 interpretation that this policy only allows the self-publishing author themselves to use such material. This is so clearly wrong that I chose to ignore. But, secondly, due to his utter refusal to allow any input whatsoever of self-published material, even when it fits the above state limitations.

• Could I please have an official clarification of the limits of such use?

The BKWSU has been referred to as both a New Religious Movement and a Cult. User avyakt7 is a recruiter for the group and engaging with a team of BK followers to re-edit the article in its favour. At core, BKWSU beliefs are based on the spiritual possession of its founder and channelled messages from spiritual beings, which they claim to be both "God" and "Adam" [as in “Adam and Eve”] respectively through various mediums, at first the founder and currently an old Indian lady at their headquarters. Latterly, seeking status by association with governmental and UN agencies, the BKWSU has sought to hide these references although they are clearly documented by academic experts and referred to as channelling and mediums by the organization in English and Hindi terms, e.g. see institutional headed note paper; [8], [9], [10].

My questions regard "easily verifiable", does this allow for the use of BKWSU self-published materials? Specifically;

a) reference to material from BKWSU published & purchasable books, teaching aids or widely used posters etc

b) reference to BKWSU published websites

c) reference to BKWSU scriptures called "Murlis"

With respect to the latter, although I appreciate that the Wiki is not a place for scriptural debate, given that it has over 7000 centers worldwide and that their scriptures are clearly identified, dated and many published; I would consider that any reference to a specific Murli would classify as "easily verifiable" by any individual by attending a centers and requesting it by date. Especially when the scriptural reference is a defining contradiction to the organization's PR, e.g. Avyakt Murli 25/10/69, "The final Destruction of the whole World takes place within 6 years. Those who tell it to be 7 years have their position reduced", Avyakt Murli 05/11/70 :"From this journey, it is 5 years for Destruction" [“Destruction” being the “end of the world”] or clearly referenced teaching posters, e.g. [11] [12] where it shows Atomic War via Russia and America and “Confluence Age 40 years” respectively, references BKWSU proponents have removed.

If we look at two similar topics, e.g. Scientology and Christianity, I see that reference to self-published or scriptural material, e.g. "Dianetics" or "The Bible", is wholly acceptable and I refute avyakt7 refusal to allow such in this topic just because it does not fit in with the organization's current PR or recruitment tactics.

• Lastly, given the nature of claims, is it safe or “weasel word” to state “allegedly God" when referring to this possessing spirit? Contrary to avyakt7 my thought is that it is safer to do so.

Statement by avyakt7

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject, content dispute. Dmcdevit·t 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject This is not ripe for arbitration. You can get clarification for policy on sources by consulting administrators, or if the dispute is heavy, by an RfC. Charles Matthews 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Iran-Iraq War

Initiated by ^demon at 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Marmoulak (talk · contribs) Notified
• Marky48 (talk · contribs) Notified
• Khosrow II (talk · contribs) Notified
• L0b0t (talk · contribs) Notified
• CJK (talk · contribs) Notified
• ^demon (talk · contribs) - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.

Previous attempts at dispute resolution:

Request for Mediation which was Rejected by myself today.

Statement by ^demon

Copied+pasted from my rejection of the RfM:

Reject: I was going to notify the two non-signing parties that they needed to sign in order for Mediation to continue, but upon an inspection of Marmoulak's talk page, I came across this section. The comment made by Marky48 (diff), with the edit summary of "Say goodnight Dick," followed by his second comment lead me to believe he is not sincere in mediation, and merely wishes to impose punishment upon those disagreeing with him. For these grounds, I am rejecting mediation, as I feel it will not be conductive. I hereby refer the case to the ArbCom for a binding resolution.

I am tired of dealing with this uncooperative user (Marky48). It is time-consuming, and I'm getting nowhere. Not only that, but as I continue to think about it off-wiki, it's obviously interferring with my everyday life. I'm not dealing with this anymore. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Marky48

I brought this up for mediation because of multiple reverts with two users who have been writing the article for a year. Both are Iranian and this is only an issue if it affects NPOV. It has been noticed early on in the discussion Talk:Iran-Iraq War it is heavily tilted in favor of Iran who appears guiltless in the whole lengthy piece, and the US and Iraq are hammered using allegations by far left independent journalists and professors inflating the role of the US in instigating and prosecuting the war for apparently their own ends.

"Allegedly there was a secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.

My concern is this assertion in the lead paragraph. It's a rumor. All sources have said in their sources that it is an "allegation," and based on one sentence by then SOS Alexander Haig, not exactly a disinterested party in seeing Jimmy Carter fail. Haig refuses to comment on his statement about Carter supposedly "greenlighting" the war and no one has seen the memo, thus, it's a minor allegation. As used by these two editors it's a smoking gun and the lead cause of the war. They've said as much. I erased it; moved it further down in the US involvement section, and added an "allegedly," only the latter remains, albeit with a fight from the two users over it, but allegations don't go in the lead. This isn't a British tabloid.

Moreover, the chemical weapons section is likewise heavily skewed to US contributions which are small in comparision to other countries and identified in the article. No worries, a small US company gets the lead graphs, and two Bell helicopters the indictment for deliberately spreading chemicals over the citizenry of Irag and Iran. These two seem to think that if a journalist says it it's gospel truth. In every case here they report an allegation not a proven fact. Sure it's a source, but an inconclusive one, thus the claim should not be in a neutral piece. I have a journalism degree and if we had written this piece for a class we'd have flunked. It's screamingly biased and so flooded with sources that anyone reading the leads would just accept that position. They won't see anything else. That's why allegations work so well as propaganda.

And one statement on personal conduct. It is insulting to be goaded and refuted after weeks of argument for attempting to get an infractor to go to mediation. I failed at that but let's not make this about minor process infractions, albeit extremely subjective. For example a so-called personal attack is identified in a response to an attack and slur, and the original slur just goes unpunished. That just happened here and it can occur frequently. Don't let the guilty get away with this. They play the administrators here like a Tennessee fiddle. It's not right or helpful and is a side issue at best. The content is where the focus should be not personalities.

Marmoulak (talk · contribs) refused to sign the mediation. He's the only one who wouldn't and since he is the gist of the problem that pretty much killed the mediation not anything I said or did in trying to change his mind according to Demon. That's a fallacy of false cause. He knows he'll fail under scrutiny. I've outlined why.

Is there an arbitration committe member who isn't from England? And keep in mind my lineage comes from Colburn, Yorkshire. The Iranian kid won't sign on to a mediation. What part of that is unclear? How do we get mediation without enforcement capability? I'm afraid I don't follow this sort of pretzel logic. Perhaps someone could explain this angle to me?Marky48 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of edit war over these same edits.[13]Marky48 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the coment from SAJordanThis user is a stalker from another article and is trying to use character assassination as a form of revenge for contesting his edits. They're allowing the dits to stand as a limited use source e.g. blogs but that's a legitimate challenge. Most of the editors on the disemvoweling article are friends of the blog in question and the blogger herself edited the article on herself for a time to provie the context of the complaints. This attack has nothing to do with actual editing content on this article (which seems to be stabilizing) and should be disregarded.

When groups of editors who share a particular genre affinity and POV inline with the subject of an article get to oust anyone who disapproves and trying to maintain NPOV it makes a mockery of the system and is group bullying. So far adminstrators are falling for it. That's an opinion supported by facts contained in the edits. As you can see here they have a close network setup and no one can touch the article without warnings going out. They even call Will Beback "biased' against the subject, thus he was forced to compromise and allow it. I respect Will's decsion but they clearly sandbagged him. The post just linked proves it.

It's also pretty evident that the rejection of this mediation was done out of an overly emotional reading of my comments. No one can determine my desire for mediation is nil as demon has when it was I that requested it. Circular logic. Marky48 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"I am tired of dealing with this uncooperative user (Marky48)"

I consider this a personal attack and false on its face. On the contrary, I'm the only one in this who HAS cooperated. I'll take a good argument from anyone but I won't take a bad one at all regardless of the source or status. My edits outlined above have been restored. The other areas in question in this article, which has been tagged for cleanup, are under edit wars still with the same editors I was, but it's between them and the others listed in this complaint. This is not about me, it's about the article so I'm getting a George Armstrong Custer feeling about the whole thing at this point. Marky48 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Uninvolved User Newyorkbrad

Based on the types of comments the arbitrators have made in other cases recently, I think they are likely to request more specific evidence that there is a problem with this article and the user conduct relating to it, including specific diffs, before they can consider accepting the case for arbitration. The diffs above and in the mediation request reflect some incivility, but do not yet establish problems at the level that usually lead ArbCom to accept a case. I'm just putting this here to save some time if the initiator of the case or anyone else want to post additional information before the arbitrators start commenting/voting. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User SAJordan

(uninvolved in this present issue, but previously involved with one party on another topic)

I asked ^demon whether a pattern of incivility by the same user (against other Wikipedians, on other topics, as showing character) would be relevant information for this arbitration, and was told yes, so... Please consider the pattern of personal attacks on other editors, as shown in Talk:Disemvoweling. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:07, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

• Reject. Only shallow grounds given for not taking this seriously to mediation. Charles Matthews 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, as per Charles Matthews. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, mediation was rejected. Fred Bauder 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Israeli POV

Initiated by Carbonate at 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• User:Carbonate
• User:Nielswik
• User:Cafzal
• User:Isarig
• User:Tewfik
• User:Elizmr
• user:Jayjg

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carbonate 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~ clearthought 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict talk
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict refused by Isarig and Tewfik.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Carbonate

User:Isarig has accused me of numerous things including POV, SOAPBOX and OR while engaging in those very acts or requiring them for any compromise. Requests for mediation have been refused and any reasonable dialog has come from the neutral 3rd parties. The page in dispute was finally locked by an admin that is also pro-israeli after it was again reverted to exclude the chart in question. The comment on the lock was "work it out in talk" despite a refusal for any compromise in talk and a refusal to mediate. Although Isarig has not commited 3RR violations, other pro-israeli editors conviently show up when 3RR has been exhausted.

Requested evidence of edit waring

• [14]
• [15]

I would also like to add that no compromise was reached despite efforts by CP/M of Wikipedia Neutrality Project who made suggestions of which most (if not all) of the initial ones were implemented in the current version. After these initial changes were made, Isarig continued to revert at which point I filed for mediation. Almost five days passed before a response was made by Isarig or Tewfik to the medation and they pointed to further suggestions by CP/M which were found to be unacceptable by everyone else as compromise that was imminent and refused mediation on that basis.

Isarig also fails to mention in his statement that the numbers he wants included are contested as WP:RS in this and other articles which he is participating in an edit war. [16].

Requested evidence of biased editing

Bias against arabs

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Bias for Israel

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

I am limiting myself to 3 on each but I can provide many more if requested. These, I think, show the trend. Carbonate 07:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by {Isarig}

I have not refused mediation. At the time mediation was proposed, a compromise was reached by the editors who participated in the content dispute, so there was no point in mediating it. Carbonate was the only one who refused that compromise. The POV nature of the chart he insists on adding is explained in detail on the Talk page. In short, a Pie chart can inherently present only one set of numbers, while there are multiple such sets in this case, and Carbonate insists on using just one set, and has explicitly admitted that set discounts the claims of one side.

Statement by Elizmr

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Elizmr 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved party) JoshuaZ

This is largely a content dispute and in any event has not gone through any prior dispute resolution. JoshuaZ 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (not listed party) Amoruso

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Amoruso 06:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tewfik

In Talk:Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Compromise suggestion, CP\M suggested a compromise that was accepted by all parties (from both sides of the discussion) except for Carbonate, which is why the mediation opened then was deemed unnecessary. If mediation is felt to still be necessary, so be it, but the proper avenues of dispute resolution are far from being exausted. Tewfik^Talk 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nielswik

I agree with Carbonat --Nielswik_(talk) 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Please present evidence of a problem of behavior, like edit warring or incivility. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentatively reject. Although the presentation of this request is poor, I can tell that the edit warring here looks bad, but it should be mediated first. Dmcdevit·t 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I might accept if you show biased editing, but you don't even show that. Fred Bauder 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject; doesn't seem enough for an arbcom case (yet, at least). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [23]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2

Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [24] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [25]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I made my case here: [26] & [27]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [28]. Fantastic! SSS108 ^talk-email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:

• 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.

Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.

Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin is correct here. 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. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person (in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. --Blue Tie 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:

• ...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,...[29]

"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that?

Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing viewpoints and be done with it. -Will Beback 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

SPUI

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. While there are a number of blocks, I only count 3 related to his probation conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

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

Archives

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