Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
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)	8 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

Current requests

Midnight Syndicate

Initiated by Durova at 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Skinny McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuardianZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peacekpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Indigo1032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:RFC tried 1 November 2006[6]
• 2 previous page protections (Oct. 26--29 and Nov. 20--Dec. 8)[7]
• Informal mediation by User:Durova[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Statement by Durova

I present this to the committee because it appears that most of the dispute's participants are embittered former business associates who have carried a longstanding dispute onto Wikipedia. Therefore further attempts at dispute resolution are unrealistic. Midnight Syndicate is a music group that produces Gothic rock primarily for computer games and haunted house attractions. The band's Wikipedia article has been the focus of an edit war that has waged for 2 months and collected 4 archive talk pages of debate in that time. The edit war has focused on whether the article should emphasize current or past membership and accomplishments, whether certain interviews that have been published in the music press claim undue personal credit for band achievements, and potential financial conflicts of interest regarding claimed affiliate firms (label, distributor, publisher).

Both sides have accused each other of sockpuppetry and one confirmed sockpuppet has been indefinitely banned.[13] [14] Some of the named parties in this dispute may be sockpuppets; I am uncertain. When I tried to mediate this dispute I recommended some WP:DR steps. The RFC was unsuccessful and the disputants declined other options. I then offered a compromise solution, provided links to several featured music band articles, and stressed that a neutral and informative article would benefit all concerned with specific suggestions about how to add the line referenced interviews and reviews, images, and music samples that the active editors were probably uniquely qualified to provide. The participants rejected the compromise proposal and made a few improvements before embroiling themselves in mutual accusations, much of which carried disturbing implications for Wikipedia's credibility. When I lifted the most recent block I did so with the caution that I was on the verge of submitting this matter for arbitration and repeated my advice to collaborate in accordance with policy. The edit war promptly resumed in bitter recriminations:

• Unprotecting this page will quickly return us to these lenghty tirades from Mr. Vargo & his other chat names.[15]
• Well, now you see how Skinny and his cohorts try to make this article into a press release and promotion for the band and it's business partners.[16]
• Yes, we could do that. I suppose it would probably prove that Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being who has been defaming Midnight Syndicate every chance he gets.[17]

Applicable policies include WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:VANITY, WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL, and WP:NPA. Given the nature of the dispute and multiple sockpuppetry, I doubt a community solution is feasible. Durova 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dionyseus

I find User:GuardianZ to be highly disruptive. He has used his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 to tagteam in the Midnight Syndicate article. [18] User:GuardianZ continues to wrongly accuse me of blanking a request [19] [20] that I clearly never blanked. I highly suspect that User:Peacekpr is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, it was created the day after User:GuardianZ was blocked for sockpuppetry and the very first edit was an investigation into me and User:Skinny_McGee. [21] Notice that User:GuardianZ, making his third edit under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, claimed to be investigating the Midnight Syndicate article, [22] this is quite similar to the investigation User:Peacekpr made into me and User:Skinny_McGee. If User:Peacekpr truly is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, then User:GuardianZ has violated policy by evading a block despite being warned by User:khoikhoi on November 20 not to do so. [23] Dionyseus 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:GuardianZ has violated NPA by referring to User:205.139.10.130 as a vandal [24] despite being previously warned by User:Friday not to make such claims. [25] Dionyseus 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by referring to User:Indigo1032's and User:Skinny_McGee's edits as vandalism. [26] [27] On November 1, User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by calling User:Skinny_McGee "paranoid." [28] Dionyseus 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Izanbardprince

Initiated by Imgi12 (talk · contribs) at 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Izanbardprince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imgi12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Note: Although no diffs were provided by Imgi12 in this section, the response by Izanbardprince indicates he/she is aware of the request. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Imgi12

Member Izanbardprince is consistently changing information to read at a liberal bias instead of NPOV. Over time I have attempted to provied a neutral point of view in both the "homosexuality" article and the "Family Pride" article, however one member, Izanbardprince, continually shows his bias against opinions other than his own and reverts or changes my posts. I ask that the respective posts be reviewed and a decision made as to the appropriateness of either.

Statement by Izanbardprince

Imgi12 is referencing extremist groups in article homosexuality and mis-labeling them as conservatives, I hardly think that an organization that wants homosexuals murdered and/or arrested is "conservative". I don't have an issue with their opinion being cited, but referencing them as conservatives in order to sway the reader towards your point of view is something else entirely, I feel I described Family Research Institute accurately with "anti-gay religious organization".

Said user is also degrading articles such as Family Pride by weasel wording, refering to homosexuals as "deviants", it's understood that homosexuals deviate from the social norm, and it's not necessary to inject words like this in such a venomous and derogatory tone.

I have reported this user for vandalism, and he's done the request for arbitration for "revenge", as you can clearly see on my user talk page. Izanbardprince 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Daniel.Bryant

Reading over this request, the articles in question (and their talk page), as well as the two users' talk page, I honestly don't believe this rises to a level where the ArbCom needs to intervene. As shown by the blank spot below the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" header, very minimal effort has been put in to sort out this problem, with users instead opting for the "throw insults at each other and hope that they go away" method. So, in summary, in my opinion, this case should be rejected and the parties sent to either MedCab, MedCom or RfC, or even the good ol' "talk it over and be civil" approach (as much as I have my doubts that this would work). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wildnox

It appears that there have been no attempts at dispute resolution, both users have violated 3RR, and Izanbardprince appears to be wikistalking Imgi12 [29]. My opinion looking at this is that not only should this request be denied but both users should be blocked to stop the edit wars that are brewing over into their talk and user pages and allow both users time to cool off. --Wildnox 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

(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.)

---

Request for arbitration: Rgfolsom

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Smallbones

Confirmation that other steps in have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Socionomics

Statement by Rgfolsom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {write party's name here}

(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.)

---

Naming Conventions for TV-episodes articles

Initiated by `/aksha at 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Wknight94 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Yaksha (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Ned Scott (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Elonka (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Note – many other editors have joined in from time to time during this very long debate. The “involved parties” here are just the main players who’ve been involved the most. A full list of people who have participated in the main discussion at WT:TV-NC can be found here (numbers are no. of edits made on that talk page).

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified on their talk pages

• User_Talk:Wknight94#Request for arbitration
• User_Talk:Ned Scott#Request for arbitration
• User_Talk:Josiah Rowe#Request for arbitration
• User_Talk:Elonka#Request for arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Request for Comment [30]. (It’s currently archived here, here and here.)
• A straw poll which was part of the RfC (archived here)
• Many calls for outside opinion (at wikiprojects [31] [32] [33], on talk pages [34], and at village pump [35]).
• A request for formal Mediation through the MedCom was filed [36], but failed.
• A request for informal Mediation by the MedCabal was filed /Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05_Naming_conventions_%28television%29. This is still open, but isn't likely to suceed (judging from the talk page).

Statement by Yaksha

This dispute is regarding whether articles for TV episodes which do not need to be disambiguated should have disambiguation. For example, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode) has the disambiguation “(Buffy episode)”, even though this disambiguation is not required.

I believe we did reach consensus to follow the existing guideline of "disambiguate only when necessary". The straw poll [37] resulted in a supermajority (80%) support for "disambiguate only when necessary". The discussion that followed supported this consensus. A detailed summary of the discussion, as well as four Request Move proposals [38] [39] [40] [41] all support the existence of this consensus. Given this, I (and others) begun to move articles which were inappropriately named [42].

Elonka, however, claimed that there was no consensus [43], [44] to move the articles, and that the moves where disruptive [45].

She has been attempting to prevent/stop the moves by actively reverting [46] [47], making making accusations of sockpupptery dispute having no hard evidence [48], threatening and requesting for people involved to be blocked [49] [50] and asking for Request Moves to be speedy closed [51]. These actions could all be seen as filibustering. She’s also been accusing others of harassment [52], stalking [53], personal attacks [54], and incivility [55]. Most of the time, these accusations where baseless, and have not been helpful in resolving this dispute.

Elonka claims the moves are disruptive to editors on affected articles, where as evidence shows otherwise [56].

Exceptions
Another aspect of this dispute is whether certain TV series should be allowed to be exempt from naming conventions, if editors on those articles agree to name articles differently.

So far, those saying Wikiprojects (and other small groups of editors) should be allowed to decide to not follow Naming Conventions have provided no convincing reasons/arguments to support their case. Elonka has consistently failed to explain why any one TV series is special in any way and therefore deserves exemption from the general convention; and why the decision any one group of editors should trump a wikipedia-wide naming convention/guideline (that is, WP:D says disambiguation should only be used when it’s needed).

Claims of Wikiprojects who have ‘consensus’ to not follow the naming convention [57] have so far all been proven false [58] [59].

Concluding remarks
At this point, we’re still working on getting articles named correctly (so moved). However, Elonka continues to insist that the dispute is ongoing, that we have yet to reach any consensus, and that the moves must stop.

I would very much hope an arbitration case can finally put a lid to this by formally showing that consensus had already been reached for this dispute, that the moves where supported by consensus, and therefore this “dispute” is over.

Statement by Wknight94

A clear-cut case of supermajority consensus has become a nasty all-out war with a very vocal minority. A poll which is now visible here included a question of whether television episode articles should only be disambiguated when necessary (as stipulated by WP:D and affirmed by WP:TV-NC). The result was 26 people choosing to support disambiguating only when necessary and seven choosing to oppose. The poll was well-publicized [60][61]. Nonetheless, a few members of the minority, mostly Elonka (talk · contribs) and occasionally MatthewFenton (talk · contribs), have declared that there was no consensus and that the dispute is still open. The reason most often given is that the poll was modified several times while in progress. While that is true, it was mostly modified from a one-question poll with three choices to a two-question poll, each with two choices, and the meaning of the most contentious issue remained unchanged (not to mention Elonka herself modified the poll: [62][63][64]). I encouraged [65] everyone to contact people to find anyone who might feel they were misrepresented by the poll but no action was taken. Instead, I contacted all 25 people [66] who voted to support the first question of the first poll and asked them if they felt they were misrepresented. The results can be seen here where several of those contacted responded but not a single one said they wanted to modify their answer. Other reasons have since been given for doing another poll on the same issue but none have been found persuasive by the majority. Allegations of sockpuppetry, harrassment, and intimidation have no supporting evidence. Feeling the dispute is over, page moves were ongoing to comply with the guideline but those are being met with hints of blocking and a request for blocking at WP:ANI. An attempt at starting another poll was thwarted by Radiant! (talk · contribs) [67]. Other claims by her have been labelled as being out of context and inaccurate [68]. Other than myself, Josiah Rowe and Radiant!, at least two other admins [69][70] feel the discussion is already done and two have even performed relevant moves themselves. [71][72]

Elonka has made statements [73][74] indicating that her goal is to let Wikiprojects or small groups of editors decide conventions which apparently would carry greater weight than the rest of the community. First, this is contrary to WP:OWN which makes very clear that no one owns articles. Second, WP:PROJ invites anyone to join any Wikiproject. That alone makes Wikiprojects powerless to take any sort of "control" in any situation. Her fetish for a class structure (e.g., characterizing herself and Josiah Rowe as "evident informal 'leaders'"[75]) is very unhealthy for Wikipedia and contrary to its fundamental community spirit.

Her latest call for a 30-day moratorium on moves [76] is also very contrary to the wiki spirit of Wikipedia, especially with no reason given to support such a moratorium.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Josiah Rowe

Yaksha and Wknight94 have made an excellent summary of the situation to date; I fully endorse their summaries. The only aspect of the debate which I feel needs more emphasis is Elonka's apparent misunderstanding of the nature of consensus. It is true that the inital poll was slightly flawed, due to changes in its format while the poll was running (including, it should be noted, changes by Elonka [77] [78] [79]) — however, after the poll closed and Elonka began disputing the apparent consensus, every editor who participated in the poll was contacted and confirmed the intended meaning of their vote. More importantly, the discussion which followed the poll (currently archived here, here and here) showed a strong consensus in support of the principle "disambiguate only when necessary", and no consensus for explicitly including exceptions for particular television programs. Of course, consensus does not mean unanimity, but as long as we were short of unanimity, Elonka (and one or two others) insisted that the poll needed to be re-run.

Each argument proposed by Elonka was shot down (see here for an early example), but she persevered, periodically attempting to recruit other parties into the discussion or to spread the debate to new venues [80] [81] [82].

Our attempts at mediation failed, in part because of an edit war initiated by Elonka over how to describe the involvement of Radiant! [83] [84] [85]. Elonka's tactics throughout this debate have given the appearance of stalling and Wikilawyering.

The core issue of this debate, how to name articles about television episodes, is really quite unimportant in the greater scheme of Wikipedia. I really don't understand why the debate got to this point, and it saddens me that it has. Any resolution would be welcome.

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 and uses 72.91.169.22, 72.91.4.91, 71.251.88.110
• Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.

Note: "Other" party should be noted as 195.82.106.244 - thank you.

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, [86]."

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. He has gone extensively out of his way to block me from editing including using secondary IPs listed above to hide his identity and file IPvandal cases against me and others to lock the page. [87].

• Avoiding all extraneous contention, could I simply please have an official clarification of the limits of such use? This is not about content dispute.

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.

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. [88] [89] 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.

This user has gone to extensive efforts using several IP to raise complaint and complaint blocking me - whilst refering to himself as the user account he uses to make edits (Riveros11) as a third party. It took me a while to work out these hidden attacks.

Statement by avyakt7

Dear Charles, Please check user 195.82.106.244 as sockpuppet of user brahmakumaris.info. Thank you, avyakt7 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Ps: Also user "bkwatch" is a sockpuppet for the same IP (195.82.106.244) avyakt7 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin moved my comments which were a response to Charles here... while I compose my statement, please take a look at this as well[90] Thank you. avyakt7 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Background: The article located on Brahma Kumaris has been initiated by user 195.82.106.244 . This user has been an ex-member of the institution which I belong to. My involvement in this article has been prompted due to the following:
1)Back in March of 2006 I was able to see this page in Wikipedia containing extremely biased opinions against Brahma Kumaris. I have attempted to exchange views with user 195.82.106.244 since then with no avail. This page was also being mirrored to other sites as well such as "reference.com." User 195.82.106.244 “owned” this BK article in WIkipedia at that time. Please see archives of March and April 2006.
2)User 195.82.106.244 (aka ".244" from now on)is the owner of this site: http://www.brahmakumaris.info This site is strongly antagonistic towards Brahma Kumaris.
3)As a current teacher of Brahma Kumaris , this article has come to my attention by potential students who were willing to explore Raja Yoga meditation. Due to the biased and detrimental editions made by user .244, these students and the public in general had a negative view of the organization which I belong to.
I must make it clear that I am not representing Brahma Kumaris in any official way. I am just a Brahma Kumar who would like to see a neutral, encyclopedic article of the institution which I belong to rather than biased propaganda.

User 195.82.106.244 has been defaming Brahma Kumaris and using the power of the internet and the visibility of Wikipedia to do this. User .244 is not interested in contributing with a non bias, neutral article containing reliable sources as suggested by Wikipedia rules.

I have provided several reliable sources in the article itself under “references.” I have contacted university professors and received their permission to quote them in the article. I must say that we had several admins coming and going to the BK site. A sample:

Actually, the best solution would be to find a reliable reference (not BK or former BK) that talks about BKWSU and quote them. We could also mention how BK's refer to themselves, with an appropriate reference.–RHolton≡– 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)”

That is not totally correct. Only these sites that are considered reliable sources can be used in articles. Personal websites, blogs, anonymous websites and the like are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you said. But in reviewing the site in question, I doubt it meets the standards required. If there is material in that site that has been published by a reliable source, editors could link/cite these sources. All other commentary and OR, unless described on secondary/reliable sources, has no place in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, user .244 has not provided a single reliable source to this day. I wonder why is he allowed to edit? Why the rules are not enforced with him?

The following will be about user .244. I believe it is needed to make my case. His character shows his attitude and his intentions. User .244 has engaged himself in several tactics. Lying about his affiliation to the brahmakumaris.info site is one of them. I presented tangible proof of that here: [91] I have also presented several differentials about his tactics. For instance, Trying to avoid mediation/arbitration when convenient for him[92] Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. [93] Direct insults to persons.[94] User 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page: [95] Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)[96] Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...[97], [98] He also reported me (riveros11) on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... [99] Someone answered. [100] 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! [101] Personal attack on Riveros11... [102] Bad faith edit comments.... [103] [104] [105] [106] Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet... [107] Intimidation... [108] Taunting... [109] [110] [111] Removing NPOV... [112] Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)... [113] Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment.... [114] [115] Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article... [116] Forest fire... [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]

Due to the above mentioned evidence, I have resorted to use my IP rather than my user name to post these claims because user .244 has been known for deleting previous users posts or “lying his way out” before an admin could take a full look at the case. It is worhtwhile to note again that user .244 has been blocked one time; nevertheless, he has blanked his page even though admin Jossi warned him not to delete the admin tag. He was also adviced by admin Rholton to obtain a user id to post. However, he has not listened.
It is in his advantage that user .244 is a full time editor of the Brahma Kumaris page unlike other part timers like myself. This is his life.

In short: I need to emphasize that user .244 is using Wikipedia for his own purposes. He has a strong animosity towards the BK movement and is using Wikipedia to show that. His motive is NOT to inform the public about this fine institution but on the contrary, to defame it.. One more time and to make sure that my point gets across. This issue is about content neutral content, with reliable sources. Thank you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk.

This dispute centers on editing of the article Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, which could be described as a new religion arising out of Hinduism, or a cult. It is likely that a full arbitration case would result in the banning of one or more editors from the article, although I'm not prepared after a limited review to predict whom.

The article was started in November 2005 by IP editor User:195.82.106.244 who has maintained a stable IP address to this day. Based on whois and traceroute data, it is likely that this editor is associated with the website [BrahmaKumaris.info] and User:Brahmakumaris.info. The 195 editor also posted an e-mail from the web site to Riveros11, although I can't find the diff now. User:TalkAbout may be a sockpuppet or at least another ex-BK member. His interests are more diverse, however. (TalkAbout is on a different continent than the 195 editor. This does not preclude the possibility that they are both ex-members of BKWS and could be communicating via one of the ex-BK member forums.

The main opponent is User:Riveros11 (signs as Avaykt7). User:72.91.169.22, a Tampa Verizon IP, signs as Avaykt7 here, so it is likely that several other Tampa IP addresses associated with this case are all Riveros11. User:Appledell is a new single purpose account backing up Riveros11; another suspected sock puppet is Searchin man (talk · contribs). A checkuser request is pending. Appledell and Searchin man are from different hemispheres than Riveros11. They certainly could be fellow members of the organization coordinating their activities, but they are not sockpuppets in the usual sense.

The main editors in this case are all single purpose accounts editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. The 195 editor claims that he is a former member and recruiter for the group and that Riveros11 is a current member and recruiter. He also claims that BKWS has a project in their IT department to keep negative information out of the article. The 195 editor has tried to insert negative material [125] alleging that BKWS is a cult, that it operates a number of "front" organizations, and that it tolerates or ignores child abuse within its ranks, among other things. When (and if) these allegations have sources, they generally do not meet the reliable source policy. The 195 editor has also repeatedly inserted links to copyrighted BKWS material hosted at third party web sites in likely violation of the copyright provisions of the external links policy. He has also repeatedly inserted a description of BKWS' 7 day course. He complains that its removal is in violation of policy since the sources are BKWS documents and are allowed under the self-published sources rules. This is in fact the basis of his complaint above, although the problems with the article go much deeper. He likens his contributions to using Scientology documents as sources in Scientology articles. Probably most of his contributions in this area constitute original research as a former member, or original synthesis of primary sources, as he does not cite (that I can find) secondary sources. However, there may be an element of obstructionism on the part of Riveros11 in not wanting accurate descriptions of the groups' beliefs to be published.

• Attempt to reveal personal information about Riveros11 [126] [127]

Riveros11 is also a contentios editor. He has apparently filed multiple reports of vandalism, personal attacks, and so on while logged out, so they do not appear in the contribution history of his named account. These reports are seen as attempted intimidation by the 195 editor.

• He apparently filed this request for investigation [128] while logged out, giving the impression that he was a third party
• posts to intervention against vandalism [129], not blocked
• same vandal report filed the next day [130], rejected as content dispute [131]
• Contributions of 72.91.169.22 (talk · contribs) (through November) are solely directed at filing complaints against the 195 editor, including a checkuser case that was declined and a personal attack report that was a duplicate of his RFI [132].
• Two other accounts that revert to each other's versions, Appledell (talk · contribs) and Searchin man (talk · contribs); sock or meat puppets? Checkuser pending.
• 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs) and 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs), if they are Riveros11, violate 3RR on 25 October.

Ultimately it is impossible to know how Riveros11 would react to attempts by other editors to introduce properly sourced and relevant negative information into the article since the only editors for the time being are the 195 editor and TalkAbout, who edit in the same manner.

Statement by Jossi (talk · contribs)

I have attempted to assist warring parties by offering advise related to application of policy. Despite my requests that editors make efforts to research secondary sources on the subject,pro and con parties prefer to editwar and accuse each other of policy violations and/or vandalism. Due to the constant editwarring, the lack of material based on secondary sources, and poor copyedit, the article is a mess, providing little useful information for readers.

I would ask the ArbCom to take the case only if there is evidence of sockpupetry. If there isn't, this should remain as a content dispute. One possible remedy, that could implemented by an administrator, would be to stubify the article, protect it, and encourage involved editors to do some research on secondary sources before resuming editing (I checked three online databases that I have access to, and found good secondary sources on the subject that could be used, so there is no lack of material.)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Requested checkuser on other involved IPs and usernames: (195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs) , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs) and bkwatch (talk · contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durova (talk · contribs)

I semi-protected the page in response to a noticeboard request. Had the participants consulted my advice further I would have recommended WP:RFC. Both sides are acting rather strangely. I recently received an angry request for unprotection by an involved IP - my response was why not register? Durova^Charge! 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Previously rejected as a content dispute. Please provide diffs showing attempts at resolving the problem (for example, any rejected mediation attempt, request for comment, or other attempts to get outside help). Thatcher131 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk page. This is not a content dispute. Post RfC, the admin that has voiced opinion on the page support the policy statement. I would like the user to accept it. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. avyakt7 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Its about acceptance of written policy by all parties. Note, the checkuser for Luis's multiple IPs used for blocks came through positive. [133]. 195.82.106.244 05:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Has any attempt been made to get admins involved in this dispute? There is a sockpuppetry claim made above: has any request for CheckUser been filed? This is apparently still a content dispute, if aggravated, and is not obviously in good shape for Arbitration. Charles Matthews 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, it is here [134]. No action taken as yet. 195.82.106.244 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   If there is abusive sockpuppet activity around this page, CheckUser should reveal this, and there can be a stronger basis for acceptance. Charles Matthews 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   None found. The BKWS and ex-BK members could be coordinating their efforts but they are not traditional sockpuppets. Thatcher131 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Accept. Borderline, but there has been another full month of strife since we rejected this the first time. - SimonP 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.

The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.

Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the page and protecting it against all attempts at recreation is certainly not going to help us achieve the desired goal. - SimonP 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture

The following was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [135]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche again

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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