Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:Jayjg]] abuse of checkuser privilege: removed, no chance of acceptance (0-4)
Line 149: Line 149:
Addendum by Piotr: the number of users who have endorsed my statements in both RfCs is proof enough that this is not a conflict limited only to the two us.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Addendum by Piotr: the number of users who have endorsed my statements in both RfCs is proof enough that this is not a conflict limited only to the two us.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====
==== Statement by W.marsh} ====
In my one encounter with Ghirldango, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=95129383], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W.marsh#Incivility_on_WP:AN], he threatened to have me both blocked and de-sysopped basically for having the audacity to disagree with him, and then made allegations that were simply untrue (like that I was a passionate defender of the #wikipedia IRC channel, and then ignored requests for any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim). This really came out of left field since I had no idea who he was until he was just lashing out at me angrilly on AN/I. He never followed through on any of his threats, and given how routinely he makes the exact same threats towards most people who with whom he disagrees, I get the feeling he puts about as much thought into saying "you should be desysopped/blocked/whatever" as I put into saying "It's cold outside today".


If there's a "cabal" against him, it's just rational good faith editors who don't like unbelievably venemous and angry people being allowed to run amock. I think arbcom should take a hard look at someone who acts in such an inexplicable manner on a project where civility and cooperation is supposed to be important. I don't claim to know the whole of this dispute, but anyone who seems to go out of his way to be insulting to good faith editors needs some kind of review. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
: (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 ====
==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 18:09, 23 December 2006

Shortcut

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).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
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

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




Current requests

Satanism

Initiated by User:Coolblue9


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Coolblue9

The entry for satanism has become a fanpage for followers of Lavey and not a general informative unbiased entry of an encyclopedia. I found the page via Google when searching for info about satanism, and was amazed that such a biased article existed, so I decided to edit it to attempt to make it more acceptable, and express NPOV. It has been reverted to a fanpage again, and a check of the history shows that this has been going on for some months and that the original infomrative unbiased page has been removed many times.

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.)

Comment by Sam Blanning

Reviewing the article history and the talk page, so far this dispute consists entirely of two reverts (one by Coolblue, one by an IP, presumably the same) and a very short thread on Talk:Satanism started by the IP. There barely appears to be a dispute, let alone one that has exhausted dispute resolution.

Coolblue, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and you haven't even really tried the first, which is talking to your fellow editors, so I suggest withdrawing this request, which will otherwise just be rejected as premature, and responding to Angel on Talk:Satanism. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, two long-standing contributors, are unable to settle their differences. An enforceable remedy is required to end the feud.

Statement by JzG

After a lengthy RfC in which Piotrus has made some steps towards resolution and Ghirla rather fewer, we have this [3] which almost immediately escalated into precisely the same futile calls for the desysopping of Piotrus by Ghirla.

Piotrus feels that Ghirla is inserting Russian POV into articles without adequate sourcing, and is edit warring about it. Piotrus has credible evidence to support this. In fairness, Piotrus is also making good-faith efforts to pursue a resolution on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus, and I think right now the dispute is mainly being maintained by Ghirla, but historically both parties have exhibited fault.

Ghirla feels that Piotrus is stalking him, forum shopping, throwing his weight around; Ghirla wants Piotrus deysopped. Consensus on the RfC is that this is absurd. Ghirla has some justification for feeling persecuted, evidence is provided in the RfC. There does seem to be an anti-Ghirla cabal of some sort. I don't believe, personally, that Piotrus is really pat of that, but he does seem to be causing Ghirla some problems, and it would probably have been better to let someone else report things rather than keep reporting Ghirla himself.

A remedy was suggested where they undertake to leave each other alone on pain of blocking. Ghirla is unwilling to accept this without an enforceable ruling. So here we are. And it's been a titanic waste of time and energy for many long-standing contributors, including the parties themselves, so I sincerely hope we can rapidly endorse the proposal brought in the RfC and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apparently the parties have now agreed to accept mediation; perhaps we can put this on hold for now? Or maybe it will be helpful to have a ruling on the past, on which to build the future? Guy (Help!) 14:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I offered to play "template referee" at the ANI thread and got a cordial response from Piotrus, who accepts me as suitably neutral and welcomes my feedback on the PAIN and RFC issues.[4] So I've expanded my offer to general mediation. Currently I'm waiting for responses from the involved parties. DurovaCharge! 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus accepts my offer. I haven't heard from Ghirla yet but I'd like to be optimistic: he and I have collaborated occasionally and have always been on good terms (Piotrus is aware of this and doesn't mind). So I'm requesting the committee to give this an interval of 1-2 days before deciding on the arbitration proposal. I've referred enough other "business" to ArbCom lately - maybe here's a situation I can keep out of your way. Will update as soon as I hear word. DurovaCharge! 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry to post in someone else's section, but) Ghirla has rejected the idea of enforcement (specifically by block) of any informal ruling; the PAIN post also post-dates these offers, I think. If both parties would accept Durova's offer this arbitration should indeed be unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the named parties have accepted my mediation offer. DurovaCharge! 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

I find Guy's request awkwardly worded. Any claims of POV-pushing on my side, of "credible evidence to support this", and of the maintenance of the dispute "mainly" by myself are outrageous, not to say patently false. My prime aim in starting the RfC was to make Piotrus stop slandering my name on the public noticeboards and user talk pages, since I don't stoop to this sort of agitation these days. I can't see how ArbCom can realistically put an end to this sort of harassing without Piotr's own volition. Punitive measures are the last thing both sides of the dispute want. Since there was deep night here in Russia at the time Guy selected to submit his request, I am probably rather late in accepting Durova's offer of mediation. Nevertheless, this is one of the remedies that may be tried before going to ArbCom, which is quite busy without plunging into the maze of Polish-Russian relations in Wikipedia during the last two years. Additionally, I may be off-line during the next two weeks (Christmas vacations in my country), a situation which would make me vulnerable during the arbitration proceedings to biased statements by Piotrus and (even more) by a circle of his yes-men: Appleseed, Balcer, Darwinek, Beaumont, etc. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Judging by Piotr's accusatory statement below, he already set out to veer this case towards revision of content and, rather than commenting on our personal interactions, put the emphasis on my relations with all other contributors, except himself. I don't know why he can't concentrate on the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute and prefers to use this board for vilifying myself for the umpteenth time. I find the diffs on my interactions with User:Oden (discussed on his talk page) or User:Vladyslav Savelo (discussed on WP:PAIN), or User:Molobo, or User:Balcer, or User:AndriyK, rather odd and quite irrelevant to the present case. If Piotrus wants the case to develop in this direction, he should initiate Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo 2, rather than producing totally unrelated diffs for the first time here, without giving me an opportunity to respond and without giving the community an opportunity to evaluate these diffs. If such is his intention, I will also produce multiple diffs of his incivility in relations with other contributors. Do we need to expand the scope of this case and to vilify each other's names here? I think the answer is obvious. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Well, JzG, who I believe is a neutral party here, said most of what needed to be said. I will however expand a little on a few points, to illustrate my take on this issue.

I don't find Ghirla's content edits to be disruptive enough to warrant any DR. Most of his edits have nothing to do with myself, and he certainly creates a lot of great articles (being, for example, one of the most frequent contributors to WP:DYK). He has indeed a very strong POV (although he never admits it) - one which I'd call 'pro-Russian' (just as I freely admit I have a 'pro-Polish' one), and he tends to occasionaly insert unreferenced highly POVed information into articles (or remove referenced one); however since almost nobody supports his most extreme claims (ex. [5]), and since he is quite observant of WP:3RR, after a short period of the your average 'edit sparring' he usually gives up and the rest of us are able to work in peace; thus despite his occasional attempts to 'POV push', we have been able to feature quite a few articles on even controversial Polish-Russian issues as the Katyn Massacre.

What I - and I believe many other editors - find very disrupting is incivility in Ghirla's comments and in edit summaries. Whenever somebody disagrees with him (and given his strong POV, it happens quite often), Ghirla assumes bad faith (ex. [6], [7], [8]) and in most cases, instead of discussing the content, launches a string of ad hominens (ex. revert warrior, troll, stalker, tagtroll, revisionist troll champion, anti-Ghirlandajo crusader, tendentious editor, Ghirlaphobe) occasionally peppered with obscenities (ex.[9], [10]), almost always bordering (and in my opinion, often crossing) the WP:NPA policy. When asked to be more respectful of WP:CIV and associated policies, he ignores such requests (usually removing warnings from his talk page, ex. [11] (and even from other users talk pages - although he doesn't shy from giving or restoring warnings to others himself), and continues the above behaviour, often accusing other side of attacking (i.e. criticizing) him (ex. [12], [13]) and adding threats (ex. of desysoping, [14]). This tends to create a vicious circle; the recent WP:PAIN incident described by JzG ([15]) is a perfect example of such a situation. Such a pattern has been continuing for years.

I believe that the only solution to this problem (other then all who disagree with Ghirlandajo leaving this project, like a valuable contributor recently did) is an ArbCom enforced civility parole (like this one) on Ghirla. As a sign of good faith, I will repeat my declaration from the RfC that I would be willing to enter under the same restrictions as well (I strongly believe that WP:CIV should be enforced at least as strongly as WP:3RR, and I am not demanding that others should behave more civil then I am). On the ending note, please note that Ghirlandajo has already been warned 'to avoid incivility or personal attacks' by ArbCom in the past; I believe Ghirla has failed to adhere to this past warning and it should now be enforced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Piotr: the number of users who have endorsed my statements in both RfCs is proof enough that this is not a conflict limited only to the two us.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by W.marsh}

In my one encounter with Ghirldango, [16], [17], he threatened to have me both blocked and de-sysopped basically for having the audacity to disagree with him, and then made allegations that were simply untrue (like that I was a passionate defender of the #wikipedia IRC channel, and then ignored requests for any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim). This really came out of left field since I had no idea who he was until he was just lashing out at me angrilly on AN/I. He never followed through on any of his threats, and given how routinely he makes the exact same threats towards most people who with whom he disagrees, I get the feeling he puts about as much thought into saying "you should be desysopped/blocked/whatever" as I put into saying "It's cold outside today".

If there's a "cabal" against him, it's just rational good faith editors who don't like unbelievably venemous and angry people being allowed to run amock. I think arbcom should take a hard look at someone who acts in such an inexplicable manner on a project where civility and cooperation is supposed to be important. I don't claim to know the whole of this dispute, but anyone who seems to go out of his way to be insulting to good faith editors needs some kind of review. --W.marsh 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. With so many interlocking allegations, I find it easy to believe the RfC is in a stalled state. Arbitration here should look at editor behaviour and alleged stalking, wheel-warring, team editing, whatever; should stay away from content issues to the extent that is possible. Charles Matthews 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. - SimonP 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba decided in September, 2006. Since that time, User:Andries has edit warred at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the insertion of a link which apparently violates the ruling. He was warned by Tony Sidaway in September [24]. Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, [30] and challenges my warning.[31]

User:SSS108 has continued to edit war at Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), exhibiting signs of article ownership (reverting across multiple intermediate versions to "his" version), and removal of apparently well-sourced negative criticism. While SSS108 has edit warred, and very little progress has been made in part due to his frequent reversions and personal comments on the talk page, the situation is complicated by the fact that the other regular editors appear to be partisans, making it difficult to take action. See my comment on the talk page [32].

I believe that further action from the committee is required, in the form of enforceable remedies, as the parties have apparently not benefitted from the previous advice and amnesty.

My role

I am one of the few admins who acts on requests made for arbitration enforcement. Today I warned Andries not to replace the link, and I protected Sathya Sai Baba pending a chance to investigate the recent edit war there. I have not edited the articles and have had no interaction with these editors other than regarding arbitration enforcement matters.

Update

After my warning [33], instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking [34]. I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month [35]. Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed all editors of Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on one revert per day parole. It seemed like the best way to stop the edit warring while allowing much needed editing to continue. I issued a 48 hour block for SSS108 for edit warring and personal attacks but suspended application of the block to see if he can work with the other editors on what seem to be rather minor issues without further edit warring or personal comments. [36] In response, a new single-purpose account Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) noted that "there is more going on in the background with attacks on pro-Sai editors and anti-Sai Baba POV pushing in other wikipedia articles than you are aware." [37] Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need for clarification

It appears the original decision was not clear enough. For example, at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an uninvolved editor has restablished the link to Robert Priddy's web page, even though he concedes it is an attack site based on original research and personal experience [38]. It seems the directive here in the prior case is not clear enough.

Activists' off-site actvities

After some investigation I have learned that Ekantik (talk · contribs) is well known on the internet as an anti-SSB activist and maintains several attack blogs, including some directed at SSS108 (talk · contribs) which specifically reference and criticize his wikipedia editing. See Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception; Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia; Sai Baba EXPOSED!.

User:SSS108 is also well-known on the internet as a pro-SSB activist and maintains web sites which attack SSB critics. See http://www.saisathyasai.com. He also runs several attack blogs, some of which specifically reference the wikipedia editing behavior of SSB's critics, see http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com; http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com.

User:Andries is a well known activist critic of SSB and runs a critical web site www.exbaba.com [39].

User:M Alan Kazlev is Martin Kazlev, an SSB critic and target of an attack blog. However, his wikipedia edits seem to avoid the subject.

User:Freelanceresearch, a new acount since the first arbitration case, is an SSB follower and is also apparently a known internet activist per comments here, although I don't any other details at this point.

Now, it may generally be true that only on-wiki behavior is subject to examination. However, the proliferation and interlinking of these web sites, and the constant and reciprocal criticism of one side by the other, shows that these individuals are mainly here to perpetuate a long-running conflict. Plus, the specific referencing of wikipedia editing on these blogs, I believe, does bring this external behavior within the scope of arbitration. And further, these editors frequently refer to these off-wiki blogs and web sites. Here, SSS108 asks me "How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person?", which is a very good question, but which cuts both ways, of course.

Statement by Andries

Request for clarification, originally submitted in September 2006
  1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [40]), Basava Premanand, Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/13#Robert_Priddy and talk:Robert Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)) (amended 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
  2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [41] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [42] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [43]
  3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [44]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
  4. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other statements by Andries
  • I noticed that two arbitrators accepted this case by referring to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, but I deny that have a conflict of interest. I sincerely wanted and still want to present an encyclopedic article about SSB. Of course, I have my bias and what I see as an NPOV encyclopedic article will be completely different from what user:SSS108 has in mind. Andries 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My edit warring on Robert Priddy was due to an interpretation of the previous arbcom decision that clearly contradicted the Wikipedia generally accepted practices of including links to homepages of the subject in the article about the subject. I tried to resolve this dispute in all possible manners including an ignored request for clarification here, mediation, and third opinion. I finally submitted user:Andries for violating the arbcom decision at arbcom enforcement. Andries 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SSS108

The statement about me by Thatcher131 if not entirely correct. I have not removed well-sourced negative criticisms from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Just recently, the most vocal critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba (Ekantik aka Gaurasundara) began editing the article and has been reverting secondary-sourced content to primary-sourced content [46][47][48] (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce [49]). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources [50]. Ekantik insists on including the primary source (which is no longer on Unesco's website). Hence the edit-warring.
I did remove the stand-alone reference by salon.com on the basis that the article was published in an online-webzine that is admittedly liberal, opinionated and a tabloid. The salon.com article has not been published or referenced by any other secondary sources. Therefore, I removed it as per my understanding of WP:RS. I was not alone in this opinion [51][52]. This issue was raised on ArbCom and they did not respond to it. The full dicussion regarding this contentious issue can be Found Here. Since Fred Bauder was the sole Admin voice stating that the salon.com article could be included [53][54], I have not removed it.
Since known critics of Sathya Sai Baba (Andries and Ekantik) are currently editing the article, I have been forced to defend what I perceive as POV pushing and the watering down of information that compromises the basic facts that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him, first-hand, by any alleged victim in India. Andries recent ban because of his behavior on the Robert Priddy article supports my claim that he is a relentless POV pusher who will defy ArbCom and Admin to push his Anti-Sai agenda on Wikipedia. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right [55].
Robert Priddy's home-page is already listed on his Wiki-page (home.no.net/rrpriddy/). Priddy's life history, life events, schooling, personal writings, personal beliefs, poems, jokes, essay's, etc., are all located on the home-page link that is currently on his Wiki-page, which Priddy entitled himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Home Page". See For Yourself or View Cache. Andries is attempting to argue that Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites are also his "homepages". The link that Andries wants to incude is one of 3 Anti-Sai sites run by Priddy that specifically and exclusively attack Sathya Sai Baba. These Anti-Sai Sites do not contain relevant information about Robert Priddy. They exclusively contain defamatory, speculative and unsubstantiated allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.
It is important to point out that these Anti-Sai websites are not just "critical" websites, they contain defamatory and potentially libelous information. Andries even conceded that his Anti-Sai Site was threatened with legal action [56]. After being threatened with legal action, both Andries and Priddy's Anti-Sai Sites now contain a disclaimer that states that the information on their Anti-Sai websites may not necessarily be true or valid.
I believe that all of the current controversial material (except the salon.com article) are well-sourced and will not seek their removal. I have been hoping that other editors would step in and re-word the critical content in a neutral, understated and encyclopedic way, as outlined in WP:BLP. Since the controversy section is so contentious, I do not seek to edit it by myself and have kept my distance from it as much as possible.
I hope this clarifies my position in relation to the Sathya Sai Baba article and my dedication to improving the article, as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and keeping a watch over it due to the critical elements attempting to edit it. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activists' off-site actvities

The list by Thatcher is not a complete list. In my response to him, I provided a full list of relevant links to critics and my websites: View Full Response With List Of Websites SSS108 talk-email 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Savidan

I don't know anything about Sathya Sai Baba; I do know a lot about the poor quality content that tend to result when single-purpose accounts from different points of view converge on the same article. I came across this article because it is ceaselessly listed on the Religion RFC page. I came there, tried to clean up the text in a few places, and very quickly found out why the page is always up for a RFC.
Before I go any further, I should probably state that my personal experience with this article has perhaps unfairly resulted in a negative perception of SSS108. Had I gotten around to the other changes I wanted to make, it's quite possible that I would have been doggedly reverted and harangued by the anti-SSB crowd. However, that is not what happened.
Basically, my experience has been that (as much as he claims that the current version is hopelessly biased against SSB) SSS108 has taken up "ownership" of the article and doggedly resists any changes. He often refuses to take responsibility for his reverts, saying that I should "take it up with Andries" etc. If non-controversial changes have taken place following the edit he wants to revert, he reverts those too. He invites you to "discuss" the changes with him on the talk page, but invariably the result was that he shaddow responded to a few of my comments and then declared that I should seek RFC because he wasn't persuaded (hence why the page is always on ther Religion RFC page).
I am extremely concerned with the quality of almost all of the sources given in the current article, both those given by pro- and anti-SSB editors. Few of them seem to go to extremely reliable or neutral sources. I'll give one example, one that has already been fixed:
Several pro-SSB sites, and one article in the Island Lanka Newspaper, make the claim that Frank Baranowksi, a kirlian photographer, photographed the Baba's "aura," thus demonstrating his divinity. I'm not even an expert on the subject—I did take a history of science class last year—and even I know that any reputable scientist thinks that kirlian photography is just crap. Anyway, the Island Lanka article and the pro-SSB sites describe Baranowski as a "scientist" and a "Professor" (they differ on whether he was a professor at Arizona State University or the University of Arizona"). So I do a google search for this guy, don't find anything about him being a professor, but do find an article about someone who was an undergraduate at ASU and went on to become a radio host who specializes in pseudoscience. SSS108 produces an obituary about a Frank Baranowski who was a radio host and apparently taught some classes at a community college. Freelanceresearch produces a link to an archived version of his website that also doesn't make any claim to him being a professor. However, SSS108 continued to insist upon describing him as "Professor Frank Baranowski, a scientist specializing in kirlian photography," making me file a RFC, etc.
To comment on two recent disputes: I think it's laughable that salon.com and UNESCO are not considered WP:RS, especially given the quality of some of the third-world newspapers and other websites deemed acceptable. There is no reason not to cite both the archived version of the UNESCO site as well as a few secondary sources quoting it.
Anyway, I'd be interested in trying to clean up the rest of the article, but I don't want to have to file a RFC every time I find false information in the article, or every time I try to clean up the extremely bad writing style (which often appears to be the result of pov-warring by people are not fluent in English). I'd suggest that the arbcom take action this time, and not rely on amnesty. That said, I do agree with Thatcher131's concern that merely blocking SSS108 (the most exgregious violator), might result in an article slanted in the other direction. I should also state that I don't care about the external links, or any of these editors off-wiki activities.savidan(talk) (e@) 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Freelanceresearch

Since coming to this Sathya Sai Baba article I think over a year ago, I have felt that Andries was trying to control the article like he owned it. I was immediately attacked by him when I first came here and his comments are on on my talk page. I was a beginner who did not know about the POV rules and Andries did, yet he has continued for years to push his anti-Sai Baba agenda on not only the Sai Baba article but other wikipedia articles as well and changes the rules to suit his arguments.

SS108 stepped in because there were many complaints against Andries and SS108 is the only person who has been able to deal with him as I do not have the patience for his games. Until Jossi came along and provided more stability toward fighting POV pushing, SS108 was pretty much alone in trying to keep the article balanced as I had decided not to edit the article until the POV pushing was brought into line and I did not want to play edit wars with people pushing an agenda.

Robert Priddy came in at one point and started attacking both joe and Me, even mentioning my REAL name on wikipedia and lying about me being banned. No one called him on it or andries on his POV pushing (using atheists as "credible sources" against SSB) and when I confronted I was the one ganged up on by pjacobi, guy and Ekantik who secretively tried to have me banned JUST so they could say I had been banned. These are the kinds of toxic games being played by those with an agenda which does not match the "real world" facts and it must not be played on wikipedia.

BTW, I have made minor edits to a few other articles but I do not edit much because I do not know much html or wikipedia editing procedures, my browser is not very compatible with wikipedia altough it is better since I upgraded it in June and I do not have that much time. Plus, I have four years worth of research backgound into the Sathya Sai Baba issues.

Regarding Savidan's comments on Baranowski above, he forgets to mention Baranowskis' web page (as well as obituary which was posted by SS108 and was in the Phoenix newspaper) does say he is a PhD, addresses him as Dr. Baranowski, and that he was teaching at the community collge before his death. The last time I looked up the definition of professor it said a person who teaches college. Freelanceresearch 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Like all of you here, I find this situation on Wikipedia, where there are strongly polarised opinions regarding a particular subject, whether it be some guru, political ideology, or anything else, which lead to a sort of trench warfare, with both sides clawing for every inch of ground, to be counterproductive and tedious.
My background in this matter is as follows.
I was a devotee of Sai Baba for more than two decades, and therefore was originally sympathetic to the arguments of SS108, who contacted me when I had inadvertently been caught in the crossfire of the flamewar between certain followers and certain critics of SSB. Having assessed and corresponded at length with representatives of both sides (SS108 on the SSB side, and several ex-devotees regarding the side that is concerned about the allegations), as well as looking at what both sides had written, I came to the conclusion that the allegations made concerning Sai Baba are factual, but that Sai Baba is not simply a fake or con-artist. Rather he belongs to an ambiguous category in which both truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed (as explained on my website etc)
I have observed that SS108 uses tactics of slander, libel, and smear against ex-devotees in order to discredit their reports of sexual abuse by SSB. Again, this is explained on my website, with especial reference to Robert Priddy.
Once I was considered to be no longer a naive devotee of SSB, SS108 decided to try to attack me, and has a rather amusing blog dedicated to me.
My only interest re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions. M Alan Kazlev 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-party Jossi

As presented in the previous ArbCom case, there are substantial secondary sources for a good encyclopedic article, that have not been explored due to the insistence of involved editors to editwar about sources that may not be the best available.

There is a tendency in these articles to base the dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents (in this case devotees of SSB) and critics (in this case ex-devotees of SSB). That is not what WP:NPOV is about. A balanced biographical article is one that presents the viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources. Clearly, there is from both sides an intent to advocate their points of view through their contributions, deltions, and overall editing behavior, in violation of WP:NOT.

My assessment is that this dispute raises out of the confusion of attempting to have an article that presents "both sides of the argument" related to the involved editors, rather than researching and presenting the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Unless involved editors spend more time researching rather than editwarring, the article will remain in its current messy state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non party Dseer

I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Wikipedia recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution. --Dseer 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekantik

I feel that I have not been treated fairly in this issue by SSS108 in particular. I recently joined Wikipedia (as of August 2006) but have very quickly become familiar with WP policies and guidelines. I have contributed to many articles and much of my editing have been in connection with articles on Hindu religion and Indian cinema, although I later created a legitimate sockpuppet to concentrate on Hindu religion articles. I admire the scope and the goals of the Wikipedia project in its entirety and am committed to making enormous contributions to help improve the project. My editing on the SSB article have been consistent with my editing on many other articles that mainly consist of removing POV, dealing with vandalism, uncontroversial page moves, and the like. I am a regular editor of other controversial pages (cases in point: Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee) but no other editor on any page I have worked on has a serious problem with my edits.

Although I am a critical apostate of Sathya Sai Baba, I am also committed to improving the article from its current messy state and this has been my intention from the very beginning, and the few edits I've made on that article reflect this. These are the events as I see them: Unfortunately SSS108 insists that he is unwilling to work with me because he believes that I cannot adhere to NPOV due to my status as a critic and apostate. Using the same standard, SSS108 (and Freelanceresearch, come to that) is unqualified to work on the SSB article because he has declared himself as an advocate and proponent of SSB although this is ambiguous and full clarification is required. I have several times declared my intention to improve the article by providing both "positive" and "critical" information for inclusion in order to bring some balance, but SSS108 cannot bring himself to accept this. Following from this, SSS108 has been notably hostile to me on Wikipedia; refusing to answer my questions, making several personal attacks, creating a section on his talk page to make personal attacks, being stubborn in reference to personal attacks, unable to assume good faith, posting my real name against my express wishes, referencing off-wiki disputation, and endless edit-warring that is a notable characteristic of his edit history. Even after receiving a serious warning and having been served with a 48-hour block (suspended) as a result, he has continued to complain about me on Admin talk pages with more personal attacks. I firmly believe that he has no basis for his claims because he has tried and failed to find fault with my edits on Wikipedia. Consequently, he is attempting to portray me as a biased and POV editor by referncing my off-wiki activites as "proof" that I cannot make neutral contributions.

Even though I have expressly declared (despite his long-running on and off-wiki attacks on me) that I am willing to assume good faith and work with him in editing the SSB article, he is insistent and refuses to work with me. Based on my little experience with him here on Wikipedia, I have noticed his propensity to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda and POV to push. He has insinuated that Savidan has a propensity to side with critics (diff) and very recently accused an Admin (Pjacobi) of having an agenda (diff) after speaking rather rudely to him (diff). We must remind ourselves that SSS108 is a single-purpose account who has a problem with anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, even going as far to construct attack-blogs against them. I am under no illusions here; I firmly believe that this ArbCom case will give SSS108 an opportunity to defame me on Wikipedia even further. The only problem is that with all of his general uncivility, resistance to good advice, and disruptive editing, several editors have despaired of him despite numerous attempts to help him correct his ways.

I must also confess that I feel rather unnerved about being dragged into an ArbCom hearing so soon after my joining Wikipedia through no real fault of my own. However I hope that this case will get to the heart of the matter and we can all get on with our business. - Ekantik talk 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

 Clerk note: In formatting this request I have removed statements that SSS108 and Tony Sidaway made in October that were reintroduced here by Andries. The statements may be seen at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, or Andries may provide diff links.

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

  • Accept, to look at conduct of all editors involved in this article, POV and COI. Charles Matthews 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Agree with Charles's proposed scope. James F. (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart

Initiated by ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! at 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Possibly Derek Smart, the subject of the article

  • Numerous anonymous IP addresses.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

further discussion regarding WarHawkSP, read this first!, AN/I discussion part 2, RFC filed against Kerr_avon Informal mediation has failed. Page Protection has failed. Talk page discussion has failed. Community bans of the malicious users have seemed to have failed. 3RR blocks have failed. Discussion on WP:AN/I has stalled. BLP Noticeboard suggested the case be brought here.

Statement by Swatjester

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I concur with Nanedesuka's statement that the case not only has to deal with the content of the article, but the behavior of the authors. I see 5 major points of arbitration:
    • Point 1: The edit warring and behavior of the editors and SPAs.
    • Point 2: The inclusion of the werewolves site as a valid source
    • Point 3: The inclusion of the Ars Technica column as a valid source
    • Point 4: The inclusion of UseNet postings by Smart, as accessed by Google Groups, as a valid source.
    • Point 5: The inclusion of the soda machine incident, as well as other critical sources as a valid inclusion
      • A subpoint to this includes other sources critical to smart, such as the numerous Daily Victim webcomics (a highly relevant comic since it had extremly high readership and was written by major gaming portal Gamespy.) and other sources.

I urge the ArbCom to keep in mind that Smart is a subject where a large majority of the material is highly critical and his public portrayal is highly inflammatory. That's the reason for his fame. It does not seem that there would be a problem including relevant material praising Smart, if such material existed in great numbers. However, there is a great deal of relevant critical material, from major and reliable sources, and given the subject of this article, a non 50/50 weight towards criticism in the article would hardly be considered "undue weight".


Statement by Bill Huffman

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

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

Since I haven't used my 500 words yet, :-) I thought I might add that I agree with everything said prior to Supreme_Cmdr's statement except that I personally doubt that Mael_Num is a Mr. Smart sockpuppet. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeffness

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

Comment to Nuggetboy's statement: He's right about the coke machine thing and I also agree that Mael-Num is not WarhawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr and the IP's. He's a distinct entity. --Jeff 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Supreme Cmdr: "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." it says in the instructions..--Jeff 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nandesuka

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

I jointly concur with Nandesuka's addition ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steel359

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

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

Statement by Supreme Cmdr

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

  • I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor do I know who they. I am being accused of this by the same editors who seek to inject [WP:BLP] violating derogatory material into the Wiki and without opposition. Anyone who opposes, is accused of being a sock puppet. I would be willing to provide a member of the ArbCom committee my personal information, under strict confidentiality, so that they can verify this. It is my hope that WarHawkSP and the others being accused of this, will do the same.
  • I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases. If he were involved in that page, given his history, he would either have been perma-banned or had the page deleted. These people don't know him well enough to make this call. The exception being Bill Huffman who has stalked him incessantly for going on ten years now. So as not to repeat what has already been posted about this Huffman person, I urge you to please read the summary poster here in the WP:BLP noticeboard.
  • The problem with the article is that editors like Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman and their ilk want to re-write history and inject policy violating material into the Wiki. These include the following.

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

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

Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Beaker342 who said:
So you see, anyone can turn this into a popularity contest. Derek Smart is a game developer. He is also human and not infallible by any means. Those who don't like him, tend to take this premise and twist it to suit their own purposes, but it doesn't change the man nor the facts as they stand.
As to the biography of Derek Smart, there isn't a single thing that I've posted, that isn't sourced. Thats what an encyclopedia is about. Just because I know about it and you don't, doesn't make me an SPA. It just happens to be convenient for you folks to claim this because without myself and others to oppose you, the Wiki would be frought with inaccuracies and pov pushing.
Comment to uninvolved_User:JzG uninvolved_User:JzG] who said:
As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart...
Your mention of the duck test as it applies to this incident is as laughable and gullible as anyone on Wiki crying foul just because a group of people share the same views. There are other editors apart from myself, WarHawkSP etc who do not want to see the Wiki tainted with unsourced and derogatory material that has no place in it. You should be focused on that, as well as the premise for the ArbCom request, instead of expending energy trying to prove a negative with such an utterly silly and laughable inference. In this instance, and to my scientific brain, the duck test fails due to backward regression. And yet, you were able to read up on ten years and over 100K posts worth of flame war material in one sitting and came up with this conclusion. Yeah right. The only duck I see here is you. In other words, your $0.02c is worthless and based on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions with no factual basis in reality. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to SwatJester who said:
However, none of this has anything to do with Wiki policy and this is why most just don't get it. You can write anything you want in the Wiki as long as you adhere to policy of which WP:BLP has the strictest requirements and which most of these opposing editors (e.g. Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman) who don't like him (for whatever reason) seem to want to ignore so that they can further their agenda. These editors want to throw out policy, ignore guidelines and push pov. Hence the problem that the Wiki is having. An example is found right there in your statement above "where a large majority of the material is highly critical". Not only is that untrue, you have no way of producing sourced material that upholds that claim. The fact that you want to balance negative and positive material clearly indicates that you have lost sight of what the Wiki is about and that is exactly the problem that these editors have been having. You cannot push pov. Period. End of story.
Nobody cares if Smart is likeable, nice, pets cats, kicks dogs or pulls wings off butterflies, what he ate for breakfast, how many times he's been married, gotten laid or whatever. Nobody cares. What we do care about is that, as an encyclopedia, pertinent and relevant information be included because, guess what pal, this is a bio of a notable industry figure and is thus protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Like it or not, thats the way it is and nobody can just bend the rules as they see fit. Even Jimbo Wales has clearly and frequently talked about this.


Statement by WarHawkSP

I support the statement summary by SwatJester and also the synopsis by Supreme_Cmdr. I want to add that items of contention are :

  1. Bill Huffman's patently libelous Werewolves website link. This fails not only WP:RS and WP:EL, but also every guideline in WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  2. The Opposable Thumbs journal commentary by Ben Kutchera of Ars Technica. This fails both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  3. Whether or not Derek Smart has a Ph.D and if it can be cited. There are claims that he has one, claims that he doesn't have one and further claims that he does have one but that it is from an unaccredited institution. Since there are no cited sources for either of the three, its inclusion fails WP:RS and most especially WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  4. Whether or not Usenet posts can be cited in the article. This one should be a no briner for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can turn the article and talk pages to a version of the Usenet flamewars. Especially seeing that Smart and a bunch of others exited the Usenet several years back, leaving Huffman and his friends to continue on with the farce.
  5. Whether or not unsourced derogatory materials can be added. Again, this one should be a no brainer for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can dig up every derogatory thing that some Tom, Dick or Harry has posted about Smart, like this was a popularity contest.
  6. Whether or not WP:BLP violating material can be removed from talk pages. This seems to be the case but there are those who are ignoring the policy guidelines on this. The clueless and/or biased admins aren't helping in this regard either.
  7. Action needs to be taken against editors like Kerr whose sole purpose it is to taint the article with derogatory material, and when challenged, they get to violate WP:NPA and WP:Civil but consistently accusing other editor of being sock puppets, insulting them etc.

WarHawkSP 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Kerr avon

Please kindly permit me to analyse the current problem, how it has arisen and why we request arbitration.

  • Background -: Derek Smart is a game developer who has developed the battlecruiser (now universal combat) franchise. He has become notable in the internet and the gaming community [[57]] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre[58] [59], but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him [60] and the said games on the USENET [[61] (with signed postings)and various internet forums.

Derek Smart's contribution to the longest running flame war in the USENET history can be evidenced a google search [62] for his name which returns >50,000 entries.

Smart's controversial nature as perceived by the gaming industry is evident as even reviewers of his games start of the review by mentioning his aggresive stance [63]] in defence of his own games.

The Derek Smart wiki article has been the subject of numerous edit wars with predominantly the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses have been found to originate from fort lauderdale florida where Derek Smart resides [64] and whose ISP is bellsouth. They have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and 3rr violations due to trying to remove cited commentrary critical of Smart not only from the article but from the discussion pages as well.

Due to the similarity of their abrasive writing style to Smart's and due to the fact that both of their IP addresses originate from Derek Smart's residential area, and due their vehement opposition to inclusion commentrary critical of Smart in this wiki they have been strongly suspected by involved parties to be sock puppets of Derem Smart himself. It should be noted that Supreme_Cmdr is the alias that Smart himself uses on his own forum, and Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad"[65]. As such serious consideration should be given as to if this bio falls under WP:AUTO.

When WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr were blocked recently, the article and the talk page were semi protected due to repeated edit warring by rotating IP addresses WP:ANI#Derek_Smart_edit_warring_and_User:Mael-Num] which originated from Fort Lauderdale, where Smart lives, which precipitated this request for arbitration.

  • Arbitration request -: We will need arbitration regarding the following key points.

1. Inclusion of the [ http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/] site.

So we need a arbitration ruling regarding whether the inclusion of the prominent werewolves site in the wiki biography as a external link would contravene the WP:BLP.

2. Whether Smart's own USENET postings can be cited in his biography to substantiate claims.

We need arbitration is Derek Smart's own USENET postings as verified by his singature and the headers which contain the USENET server etc can be used as cites in his bio. This is mainly due to the fact that by nature Smart's reason for prominence is his contribution to the mamoth USENET flame war, and a special case should be made in his case.

3. What commentrary critical of Smart should be permitted.

Statement by Nuggetboy

I am involved in the article as an editor, although I'm probably more involved in talk. This, I assume, is why I'm not listed on this RfAr. I concur almost completely with SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness. I do not agree with Swatjester's point 5 as I think the coke machine incident simply doesn't belong here, even if it were verifiable. However, the other points there are key to this issue.

Comment to Steel359 and JzG:
I disagree that User:Mael-Num is a Warhawk/Supreme Cmdr sockpuppet.

- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Oops, didn't list you because I got my list from editors on the article history, not talk and you hadn't popped up. Sorry. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved user Beaker342

I too have been invloved in the article both as an editor and in the talk section trying to resolve controversies. Like the other good faith editors of this article I have been stymied by the presence of a few beligerant SPAs, most notably Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk. I agree with almost everything that has been said so far by SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness, and would welcome an ArbCom ruling that would put to rest debates that have been raging for over a year now.

I would like to add two very brief points:

1. Smart is a controversial figure, and the article to be objective must reflect that. Smart is better known for his online behavior than for his computer games. Sumpreme Cmdr's claims otherwise are simply false. I'll cite the lead sentence in the review of his most recent game Universal Combat at the highly respected gaming site Gamepsot: “Controversy is an undocumented feature in games designed by outspoken developer Derek Smart.”

2. Besides being SPAs with a solitary interest in Smart and his games, removing anything critical of Smart in articles on him and his games, and being based out of Ft. Lauderdale where Smart lives, Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk have also repeatedly displayed preternatural knowledge of Smart’s business dealings [66] and legal history [67]. The fact that Supreme_Cmdr/Warhawk have intricate knowledge of Smart's biography that is not available to even the most dedicated of researchers stands as further circumstantial evidence that we are in fact dealing with WP:AUTO. --Beaker342 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

  • Threaded comments moved. Please edit within your own section only. Thatcher131 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article was the subject of a prior request for arbitration, which was rejected at that time, see here. Newyorkbrad 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Due to the huge size of this case I have trimmed Supreme Cmdr and Kerr avon's posts; the originals are copied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. I have also moved the statements of uninvolved editors to that page. Thatcher131 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport

Initiated by thadius856talk|airports|neutrality at 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Huaiwei — Jpatokal — Dbinder — Wangi — Chacor — Hunterd


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Avoidance of removal or reversion without discussion and consensus.
  2. Taking a break from improvement of disputed article.
  3. Extremely lengthy discussion at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport.
  4. Solicitation of outside opinions from Peer Review [68], Wikipedia talk:Lead section and WikiProject Airports Peer Review [69].
  5. Mediation Cabal case (closed).

Statement by Thadius856

Upon first seeing the Singapore Changi Airport article, I was struck by now ugly the lead paragraphs looked. While attempting to improve said article through GA-status, I found that the lead needed trimming due to slow creep. The first sentence in particular contained a slew of alternate names, including: Chinese, Malay, Tamil, pinyin [sic] and two names in English. As they were already present in the infobox, they were repetitive in nature and detracting from the readability of the opening sentence in its then-present form.[70] The MoS on lead paragraphs dictated they be removed, as "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction" and Wikipedia is WP:NOT "an indiscriminate source of information".

However, I didn't remove them from the lead myself as it would have been reckless and acting unilaterally. Instead, I joined the discussion on the talk page.[71] User:Huaiwei appeared extremely intent on keeping all the names in the lead, even to the point of posting personal attacks [72], having to be reminded to assume good faith [73] and myself having to ask him to maintain civility.[74] I eventually opened a MedCab case to help reach a consensus. Though Huaiwei was notified[75] and a notice placed on the article's talk page[76], he never participated in the mediation. A reminder was left on the article's talk page 4 days prior to closing[77], to which he responded[78], though he later confirmed voluntarily abstaining.[79]

Huaiwei appears to have attempted to take ownership over the article[80], opposing any changes proposed, reverting any edit that he doesn't see fit without any improvement[81], and WikiLawyering his way out of talks instead of helping to build consensus[82]. I edited the lead[83] per the mediator's closing comments[84], only for Huaiwei to re-add it all back verbatim[85]. At the very least, the final move appears to me to be against the policy on resolving disputes ("Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.") and the guideline on consensus ("Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been adjudged a violation of consensus")

His block log [86] shows a total of 11 separate blocks in the past 16 months; all of them for edit warring, three revert rule or probation violations. It appears that simple short-term bans have had no effect on his behavior as of yet, so there's little hope that another simple slap on the wrist and short block will fix anything.

Statement by semi-involved User Wizardry Dragon

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

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

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

Addendum In further support of the need for this case to be looked at more thoroughly, simply look to the number of bans that have been issued, in Janurary alone in relation to Huaiwei:
    • Banned from Category:Chinese Newspapers, January 11, 2006.
    • Banned from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway, January 12, 2006.
    • Banned from Queensway, January 12, 2006.
    • Banned from Supreme court, January 16, 2006.
    • Banned from List of museums, January 19, 2006.
    • Banned from List of airlines, January 20, 2006.
    • Banned from Clock tower, January 23, 2006.
    • Banned from Lists of country-related topics, January 23, 2006.
    • Banned from Singapore Science Centre, January 24, 2006.
Also, note that Huaiwei has been blocked no less than eleven times.
In short, I think a stronger remedy than probation is neccesary and that the pattern of abuse needs looking at in greater detail. The pattern to me seems to suggest long term abuse. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by SchmuckyTheCat

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

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

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject - take it to arbitration enforcement, as I believe that should be sufficient. Questions of appropriate style are outside the arbitration committee's remit and should be settled in the normal way - by talking and reaching a rough consensus. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. What he said. Charles Matthews 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Morven. James F. (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [87] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees out to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR? Is a fourth arbitration case necessary?

After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.

My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?

Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.

The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).

My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it is time for you to stop reapeating the claim that Instantnood was POV-pushing on Single-party state. He wasn't, as I explained to you, and as you half-admitted in the discussion on the arbitration enforcement page. Instantnood has surely done many things wrong. None of these he did on Single-party state. The only things that have been done wrong there are personal attacks by Huaiwei, and an editwar also started by Huaiwei. Start an arbitration case if you want, but stop threatening to start them and stop trying to blame the dispute on somebody who is hardly even a part of the dispure. Or in short: Please lay off the intriguing. --Regebro 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your questions, No, Yes, and No; and, Perhaps.
More clearly (;-)): no, admins can't (yet) decide to place a user on 1RR (this is the "law" of policy, not us - if you want to make it so, try to convince the community into making it policy, though personally I think it unlikely to make it, and not a terribly good idea without quite a significant level of suffrage required of the deciders); yes, the Commmittee is the only body currently "allowed" per policy; no, the Committee can (and does) make extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances (that is, apply remedies without the fag of having a case), and, more normally, can "tack on" additional remedies as and when it suits us to former cases on subsequent (and, normally, consequent) matters concerning the individuals in the previous case.
Arbitration is indeed "not a laughing matter". As to the specific circumstances you highlight, I think that you should attempt mediation in good faith rather than writing it off before it has had the chance to suceed (or fail), which your phrase "mediation will probably fail" rather suggests.
James F. (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPJ case and the Spartacus site

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have posted on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Wikipedia, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - SimonP 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem was caused by use of selected pages from the site to advance contentious points. Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=96133005"