Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• 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.

Current requests

Category:Kurdistan

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

Involved parties

• Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bertilvidet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ozgurgerilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1] - Baristarim notified
• [2] - Bertilvidet notified
• [3] - Bohater notified
• [4] - Cool Cat notified
• [5] - Francis Tyers notified
• [6] - Khoikhoi notified
• [7] - Ozgurgerilla notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan
• RfC post (links to the above case)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Category:Kurdistan
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#Category:Kurdistan's sub categories

Statement by Cool Cat

I have initiated this user conduct case request.

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

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

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

-- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• revert with out discussion by Khoikhoi
• revert with out discussion by Bertilvidet
• revert with out discussion by Bertilvidet
• NPA violation by Ozgurgerilla
• NPA violation by Ozgurgerilla

Statement by Ozgurgerilla

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

Statement by Bohater

I join Ozgurgerilla. I think one other neutral User should cleap up. From my point of view Cool Cat try to delete all Kurdish subcategories because of the Turkish Part of Kurdistan. He understands all Kurdish cultural customs or names as political terms and try delete it. For example here: [[[8]]. it's almost incomprehensible why he describes these kurdish colors as ""ugly"". How can a Kurds feel then?. No,No!!. Please notice these in Cool Cat.. Thanks. --Bohater 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Penwhale

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

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; I haven't seen enough evidence that this isn't about content and that it warrants a case yet. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Online Tutoring

Initiated by Tony at 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bruguiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (signs posts as "Tony")
• Ambin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Bruguiea

The Online tutoring article is a frequent target, in my opinion, of link spamming. Numerous people have regularly added links to commercial website. I reverted most of the edits for quite some time but recently users started to revert my reverts. This has been discussed on the talk page but my edits are reverted without comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_tutoring&curid=4981093&diff=119083313&oldid=118619984.

I see these links as spam (as per Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking). They do not provide additional information, nor confirm facts asserted by the article. They are just directory entries.

The users usually have relatively small edit histories and may be sock puppets. I cannot be sure (not an administrator) and I think the policy is to assume good faith by default.

• Comment from originator. Hello all. I am new to the procedure and thought that it was a first step before contacting administrators but it turns out that RfA are actually more of a last resort. Please, do feel free to remove this item; but if you do so, could you kindly point me to the appropriate first step to resolve this (on my talk page). Tony 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

There is no evidence the parties have been notified (in fact, one of their talkpages is still a redlink). Filing party advised to notify all parties. Newyorkbrad 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to the procedure. I notified them. Tony 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject. I don't see sufficient attempt to resolve this situation before going to arbcom. Have you brought an article RFC? Have you attempted to involve people from Wikipedia:External links to help with the situation? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, perhaps speedily. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. We have other mechanisms to deal with such a situation, including steps in dispute resolution. If spamming is indeed a problem, consider requesting blocks, if appropriate, of editors who continuously linkspam or place a request to the spam blacklist. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, per Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, agree with comments of other rejecting arbs. FloNight 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Tsunami Butler (LaRouche)

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

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

• On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [9] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [10] There are no reliable sources for the John Train Salon claim, which is a major LaRouche conspiracy theory, and which arguably defames a number of named individuals. Tsunami reverted twice when others tried to remove it. [11] [12] Talk page discussion here.

• On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [13] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [14]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [22] Talk page discussion here.

I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [23] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to John Siegenthaler, writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [24] The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [25] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [26] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.

To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of Jeremiah Duggan. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [27] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.

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

Response

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

SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King (Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)) and Chip Berlet (Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log).) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one [28].

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

• It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.

• The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.

• As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."

Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [29] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• "It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."

• It involved BLP violations, which is why it was removed, as several of us explained to you at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."

• No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [30] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."

This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [31] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{LaRouche Talk}}. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of Poisoning the well -- but in none of these cases have I seen any evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was User:ManEatingDonut) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of Political Research Associates, as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the WP:BLP policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.

I am not proposing that the LaRouche cases be re-opened. I am suggesting, however, that SlimVirgin's request to block me be seen for what it is: a tactic in a content dispute. This is an attempt to misuse admin authority and it should be rejected. --Tsunami Butler 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me correct just a few of the falsehoods that argue in favor of upholding the previous Arbcom decisions. I do not control the website of Political Research Associates; Political Research Associates has a staff of eight and has been relied on as a reliable source by major daily newspapers and in publications by academics; I am not the director of Political Research Associates, nor have I ever been; I have written extensively about the Lyndon LaRouche network, and and some of my articles appear in major daily newspapers and scholarly publications; I avoid citing my own work on Wikipedia whenever possible; all of the charges made by Dennis King and me are extensively researched and in most cases have been verified by other journalists who have had access to the original documents and former members. I believe that Tsunami Butler is not able to see these types of distinctions, and instead continues to post material that is not suitable for Wikipedia due to its uncritcal and credulous POV support for Lyndon LaRouche, his idiosyncratic (and frankly lunatic) ideas, and the slavish regurgitation of those ideas by his sycophant followers.--Cberlet 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlet may claim that he is just another employee at PRA, but in reality, he is the principal writer there, and is free to post anything he likes on the PRA website, such as this, a special page he set up for his disputes on Wikipedia talk pages. And like SlimVirgin, he slyly tries insinuate that the conflicts on the LaRouche pages are about editors making favorable assertions about LaRouche, when in fact, the conflicts generally arise in response to Berlet and King adding precisely the sort of invective you see in Cberlet's post above. --NathanDW 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again I am only correcting false and misleading statements. I am one of five people at PRA who write articles for PRA and outside media. I am not free to post anything on the PRA website, we have a web editor, and a research director, and an executive director, all of whom can (and do) reject my proposals on a regular basis. The few pages (out of thousands) on the PRA website that mention Wikipedia and LaRouche were posted because a few Wiki editors were making false (and in some cases defamatory) claims about my work in my outside persona as Chip Berlet. Among these false claims were that I was inventing quotes attributed to LaRouche. This is false. I was finally forced to post actual page scans in some cases before these pro-LaRouche Wiki editors would admit the quotes existed, and even then some persisted in challenging the authenticity of the documents--a false claim that still continues today. The conflicts on LaRouche pages generally arise when pro-LaRouche editors such as Tsunami Butler and NathanDW uncritcally accept as true the relentless falsehoods and lunatic conspiracy theories propounded by LaRouche, (a convicted criminal, and "notorious antisemite,") and his followers. That this is so is shown by the posts above on this page. --Cberlet 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough. This is not an appropriate forum for your soapboxing about LaRouche. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will stop posting comments here after this one which poses a legitimate question to Kirill Lokshin to which I would appreciate an answer here: Why is it acceptable for editors to call me a liar, falsely suggest I am part of a conspiracy linked to entries about LaRouche, and make false statements about my work and the organization for which I work; but when I post comments about LaRouche for which there is copious evidence in reputable published sources, (relentless falsehoods, lunatic conspiracy theories, convicted criminal, notorious antisemite) it is "soapboxing about LaRouche?" Can you consider for a moment that this is exactly the ongoing pattern of inverting reality, conspiracism, and muddying the waters with false claims originating with the LaRouche network that creates the disruptive situation on LaRouche-related pages? I think this is the crux of why what I am posting here is appropriate to the current discussion.--Cberlet 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessing sources for an entry includes critically assessing its authors, such as you. Andries 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your comments are unacceptable doesn't mean that others' comments about you aren't as well—false accusations are, of course, inappropriate regardless of any other considerations—but the crux of the matter is that you are an editor here, and hence your behavior is of interest in examining what is occurring here as far as editorial activity is concerned. LaRouche, meanwhile, is not personally involved in the editorial process on Wikipedia, and thus any evaluation of him is entirely irrelevant outside of a discussion of what material articles dealing with him should contain. Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant comment

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

Response by arbitrators

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

If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01

In light of six statements now [32][33] by Fred Bauder, I request these malicious defamations against my person and character cease immediately. User:Cberlet alleged myself, User:Nobs01 whose true identity became known at Wikien-1, led a cabal of "LaRouche editors". User:Cberlet himself admitted to the fraudelent nature of the charges [34]

I formally request the newly elected independentet ArbCom act now to put an end to this malicious defamation of my person and character, remove my name from that travesty of process known as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, and hold these offending parties to account for the malicious personal attacks on living persons which there is now an obvious and evident pattern. -- Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01

How this editor, User:Cberlet, could make this edit [35], in which he cites himself and alleges Daniel Brandt is associated with fascists---the root cause of all the problems Wikipedia has with Brandt--and get away with it is just one more scandal brewing for Wikipedia. --Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01

Fred says, "someone without the LaRouche axe to grind. That includes the anti-communist axe as well." So this presumes a Christer [36] a pejorative ascribed to Mr. Chip Berlet, author of Wikipedia's famous attack series, Dominionism. --Rob Smith aka Nobs01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.133.178.130 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Request to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [37] to comical [38]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [39].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [40] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [41] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [42] [43] [44].

I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [45]

I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [46].

We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [47] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.

I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.

BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.

Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked[48] or warned[49] per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

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

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

Good suggestions. That has already been done. This particular rabbit hole goes rather deep. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Archives

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