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

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

Initiated by Constanz - Talk at 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Constanz (talk · contribs)- iniated the arbitration

Vecrumba (talk · contribs)

Martintg (talk · contribs)

Grafikm fr (talk · contribs)

Irpen (talk · contribs)

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs)

Various others

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

User talk:Vecrumba - [1]

User talk:Martintg - [2]

User talk:Grafikm fr - [3]

User talk:Irpen - [4]

User talk:Petri Krohn - [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• WP:RfC (commented here)
• WP:RfC

Summary

It is disputed, whether Soviet rule in Latvia (1940-1941 and from 1944 on) can be referred to as occupation or not and whether the current title is neutral or not. Constanz - Talk 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Constanz

When I first saw the dispute on talk page, going around the question, whether Latvia was occupied by the USSR or not, I thought it wasn't a real content dispute. A couple of users, me included, have removed the POV-title tag and non-compliant tag added by some users, and even reported admin noticeboards, believing Irpen's, Grafikm fr's & others' acts would qualify as improper use of dispute tags. That's so because the side who doesn't accept the claim, that the USSR occupied Latvia, has not provided any verifiable sources, that would undermine the accepted opinion. Also, it has not been clearly explained, in what way is the article non-compliant. However, this seems to qualify as content dispute, not abuse.

In my view

1. It has been proved on the talk page, that mainstream Western sources regard the events as Soviet occupation, and Grafikm fr's idea that “Baltic states joined USSR in 1940” is clearly not an accepted thesis in Western history writing. As it is proved on talk, the term occupation is widely used in this context: [6], incl. Britannica, Encarta and similar sources [7]
2. Although Irpen admited, that “[t]here is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law” [8], he and other people of his view have still argued, that the term occupation must not be used. So far, they have not presented any reputable sources, but have performed their own argumentation: Baltic states are said to have been members of the USSR (which is legally false, since the annexation was illegal), “were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet” and “All this hardly qualifies as "occupation"”, also interpretation with some factual errors in it etc.
3. Instead of recognizing the sources presented by the other side (or citing the alternative sources), occupation deniers sometimes link Russia's propaganda statements irrelevant to the subject, or express straw man arguments: to admit Soviet occupation is said to be “modern form of Holocaust denial”. Are some Britannica articles then written by Holocaust denials? Actually, I think that there are no reputable sources which would say Latvia was not occupied by the USSR.
4. When directly asked, why should the title used in Britannica be called 'POV-title' here, then e.g Grafikm fr claims the term occupation “was crafted during the Cold War” and is now, thus, POV. However, this would be original research, since once again, no sources were given.
5. I agree, that the article itself is becoming a mess: due to the dispute, whether the occupation took place or not, the article has been filled with proofs, why the events were recognised as occupation by most of the word. Once we have formally admitted the stance of Western mainstream sources (i.e that Latvia was occupied), also opinion of the majority of people who have expressed their opinion on talk, we can start removing unnecessary proofs.
6. In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule whether the events described in the article can be referred to as “Soviet occupation” and whether the article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Constanz - Talk 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

Purely a content dispute. The article is a mess, a textbook example of WP:TE. Its composition is a set of loosely related events arbitrary pasted together to create this article in its current shape thus making the history look even more tendentiously presented. Article's title is purposefully inflammatory. Article is full of original research and is unimprovable. The well explained tags are there to warn the reader about the article's problem. I would have AfDed that stuff but from experience AfD is usually decided based on the general validity of topic ignoring the article's having nothing to do with that. Article RfC was filed and the casual onlookers also offered changes, including the title change[9] [10] and compared the article's guardians' approach to Holocaust denial. None of the suggestions were implemented. So, every reason to keep the warning tags are there since the changes that would have made an article more compliant were fiercely opposed. That the uninvolved users saw the article's deficiencies proves that the tag was well justified.

If arbcom is to insert itself into this purely content dispute, its attention to the matter would be welcome, at least from me. Suggestions and objections at the talk are given in detail and arbcom members are invited to join the discussion. Maybe it's time for arbcom to change its traditional stance on refusal get into the content disputes. If so, I have a dozen of much more important irreconcilable articles and I will be happy to bring them to the ArbCom's attention. --Irpen 14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Some members are committing tag abuse to vandalise the article because in their personal opinion the title is purposefully inflammatory. By tagging the title POV they are effectively pushing their own POV that occupation did not occur and are giving undue weight to their own POV. They offer no verifiable references to support this alternative POV, just opinion and speculation. Many other contributors have provided references that Latvia was indeed occupied, including mainstream encyclopedias such as Britannica and Encarta. The article is not an arbitrary collection of loosely related events, but a tightly related sequence of occupations that occurred during WW2, in any case this point is not a POV-title issue but one of editorial style. Only one section is claimed to be OR not the whole article, so a section level OR tag is more appropriate. The article level tags are usually placed with no explanation or without sufficient explanation and certainly no verifiable references to an alternative POV are given. Some members have admitted their preference to AfD the article, but given difficulty in this approach, have resorted to vandalising the article via POV-title tagging. The article is a mess because of this continuing ongoing focus upon the title, which is probably the intent of this POV-title tagging, to stall progress in developing this article. Martintg 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond a mere content dispute. The issue concerns the abuse of the spirit of WP:NPOV by certain individuals, intended to reflect views held in common usage, by applying POV-title tags to promote a particular political view point that is not widely held. They offer no published source to support their implied alternative POV, which would be constructive in forming a consensus. Disinterested comment in Third Opinion and the rfcs agree that title is NPOV. Exhaustive discussion has been made on talk page regarding the term "occupation". There seems to be a core group of three individuals who seem to be immune to all evidence and third opinion and seem intent on persuing a dogmatic position. Application of article level POV tags is meant to be constructive, however in this particular case it is being used destructively because the one applying the tag has indicated a preference that the article be deleted entirely, so I don't think they are approachig this issue in good faith. Martintg 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Content dispute. Paul August ☎ 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; agree that this is a content dispute and not ripe for arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. What they said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. A glance at the article's history is proof enough that there is more than a content dispute here. Accept to look at conduct problems like edit warring and incivility (accusations of vandalism). Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Administrator Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)

Initiated by Reswobslc at 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in regards to numerous unilateral deletions by this administrator, many of which violate WP:DP, as well as persistently deleting the complaints of said behavior, by anons, users, and admins alike. Also, for silencing Dispute Resolution brought regarding him with his delete privilege, and for indef-blocking users who only cricitized him, and for protecting his talk page for weeks at a time to stop criticism of his actions.

Involved parties

• Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs). He has protected his talk page for the past 3 weeks, so if someone will unprotect it, that can be done.

I have addressed this and notified Lucky on his talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Inquiries to this user get deleted without response. He's wiped all the history, but these diffs [11] [12] [13] [14] were a few unacknowledged deletions of complaints to him. Some such articles may very well have been legitimate candidates for speedy deletion (they're gone I can't check), but a substantial number were AfD material at best, or were easily fixable by their authors given a little guidance had the articles not simply vanished. One complaint I foundhe wiped even came from an administrator, which provoked this response from the other administrator.
• Another editor started a mediation cabal case, but Lucky 6.9 deleted that too.
• Another editor complained directly to Lucky, citing diffs for numerous inappropriate deletions. Lucky immediately deleted the comment, and then indef blocked him for complaining. (One edit summary alleges some incivility - maybe that happened too, but I can't find any - certainly not enough to qualify for an indefinite block. Maybe it "vanished" too.)
• Another editor that had his work deleted, wrote Lucky contesting it, and was threatened with a block "so fast your head will spin" for doing so.
• A relevant discussion developed from the mediation case on Administrator's Noticeboard, both about his deletions and inappropriate blocking[15]. I did not participate in the discussion.
• I barely started a user conduct RfC, but chose to bring to ArbCom since he seems to be renouncing his adminship and I don't think RfC can act upon that.

ArbCom is asked to consider this administrator's behavior and mounting complaint history (much of which he has deleted), and to consider his informal resignation of adminship as binding, and accordingly withdraw the ability to delete articles.

Statement by Reswobslc (talk · contribs)

This administrator has been the subject of numerous complaints regarding inappropriate article deletions, as well as deletions of the complaints themselves. Last month another editor began a mediation cabal case regarding these deletions, and he deleted that too. All the complaints are typically for the same thing. In the words of User:Mel Etitis (diff), who is an administrator: "I'd followed up a speedy notice, found the article wasn't speediable... the article had been deleted by Lucky. I recreated it, left a message at his Talk page, went back, and he'd deleted my recreation. When I left another message... he'd deleted my first two messages from his Talk page."

After deleting the mediation case, he then protected his own talk page to block further complaints, claiming "wikibreak" yet he never left. Now, in response of a new user conduct RfC I opened regarding him now, he left this and then this blatant attack no different than the numerous abusive comments and edit summaries left to others who have questioned his deletions. He appears to now be volunteering his own resignation, at least as an administrator, here (deleted, but see log summary) and here and here, and has deleted the entire history of his own talk and user pages. We warn regular users for blanking their talk pages nevermind deleting them. I suppose it is only a matter of whether it is considered binding and gets acted upon, as it certainly settles all the complaints.

If I didn't think he'd be back soon, I would suggest not bothering to desysop him, but as this is already the fourth time he's "left the building" (see log) his return is certain. This also apparently isn't the first time he's been desysopped - from what I can tell, he was "voluntarily" desysopped in February 2006, but then was resysopped at his request without an RfA months later. Lucky 6.9 took four RfA's to become an administrator in the first place, barely squeezing by on the fourth - the first three (1) (2) (3) going nowhere due to concerns he would do exactly what is being complained about here, and the fourth only passing due to people having faith he would not do the exact things complained of here. Reswobslc 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved MacGyverMagic

• I haven't checked everything in full detail yet, but what I've seen so far doesn't appear to warrant an arbitration case even if Lucky returns. Despite the fact he deleted talk page material, he kept archives of the stuff he deleted from his main page. The posted links by the person who requested arbitration are largely dead and the RFC wasn't even certified.

I would ask arbcom to check if his talk page has a history of getting vandalized which would clearly explain his wish to have it deleted and or protected in his absence.

- Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The links were all dead because Lucky deleted the pages they pointed to. They've been since restored. The RfC was withdrawn within 24 hours. As a time saver, diffs to all the vandalism I could find since October (though I found none around the time of page protection): [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Reswobslc 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JzG

Meh, what is this crap. Lucky 6.9 deleted Hershey squirt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an "article" on a neologism referenced solely from Urban Dictionary, and that seems to have prompted User:Reswobslc to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I storngly suspect that the amount of effort expended on arguing over that article outweighs the time spent creating it by at least three orders of magnitude. So what if Lucky decides not to reply to trolling about self-evidently valid deletions? If Reswobslc wants that article undeleted, deletion review is second on the left down the hall, but I for one would vote to endorse deletion - under a thousand ghits not one of which appears to be a reliable source. I undeleted the talk history so I could check the diffs above and what they amount to is that Lucky 6.9 deletes crap articles and occasionally says so in as many words, plus when he is baited by the creators of these crap articles he sometimes just deletes their comments and sometimes bites back.

A quick look at Lucky's deletion log indicates no significant problem. The majority of the links are still red and there are not so very many salted articles as to raise a pressing concern. I'd prefer to see better deletion summaries, but that's about it.

No prior attempts at dispute resolution, the original complaint which started the whole thing is baseless anyway, the deleted article has no evident merit and in any case no admin is obliged to debate speedy deletions if they choose not to. In short: Mgm is right, there is nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This RfAr isn't about Hershey squirt. If it were, the Reichstag comment would make total sense. At the time of this comment, I hadn't finished the RfAr, so he could only comment on what was there at the time. Reswobslc 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Zoe

Utter crap. This is a gross waste of Arbcom's and everybody else's time. Don't you have an encyclopedia to edit with meaningful articles instead of nonsense? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As User:Zoe is a person who communicates with Lucky 6.9 outside of Wikipedia on a regular basis as noted by this comment, this claim of being "uninvolved" is misleading and dishonest. Reswobslc 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Communicating off-wiki with someone does not mean that I am involved in this dispute. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that's possible, but even just this edit and this edit make this person's level of involvement pretty clear. Reswobslc 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved N6

I have no prior involvement beyond watching RFARB, and I take no position against the appropriateness of Lucky 6.9's mainspace deletions. In fact, a brief glance at his delete history suggests he has done a great deal of extremely tedious work to the betterment of the encyclopedia.

However, the "gutless wonder" and "pathetic loser" comments left by Lucky 6.9 on Reswobslc's talk page are highly troubling. Perhaps even more troubling are the allegations of using admin tools to quash dispute resolution and of improper blocking.

Could those voting to reject please provide some reasoning? It's evident from logs provided above that he has established a persistent pattern of "retiring" and then returning a few months later, so I hope his apparent abandonment is not considered sufficient grounds to reject. n₆^c 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Although personal attacks weren't what I focused on here, they too have always been a problem. His calling a one vandal a fucktard who should stick his doggie where the sun don't shine, and his warning to another "stop fucking around!" contributed to the failure of his first three RfAs. Nothing's changed. Reswobslc 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The need for existence of #wikipedia-en-admins

Initiated by Irpen at 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel is the last of the multitude of places where this has been discussed. Many ArbCom members took part in these discussions.

Summary

In megabytes of the discussions of this thorny issue, no evidence has been yet given that there can possibly be any "admin-only" confidential matters that require the closed channel. ArbCom has recognized the host of problems the channel and some of its members were generating. ArbCom de-facto took steps to regulate the channel thus asserting its jurisdiction over the matter.

ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Wikipedia-related medium. --Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

This is not the case I was planning to launch when I talked about my planned ArbCom action recently. But I think the idea has been in the air for some time now. I will be brief since everything there is to it has been said and all sides that wanted to hear, have heard each other's arguments.

1. ArbCom recognized that the channel has an evil side and has recently made a series of actions to alleviate them.
2. Thereby ArbCom asserted its jurisdiction of the channel de-facto and the community accepted the ArbCom intercession, thus confirming the said jurisdiction.
3. The matters whose confidentiality is really necessary are related to checkuser issues, some ArbCom issues and oversight issues. As such, there is a need for ArbCom and checkuser IRC or other private medium. No examples have been given for inherently confidential "Admin-only" issues to this day,
4. while the very confidentiality of the "Admin-only" channel has been proven to be the reason of several abusive actions. 'The illusion of confidentiality created an illusion of impunity among certain regulars of the channel which resulted in severe offenses, gross incivility, violations of the WP:BLOCKing policies and other malaise.
5. In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule whether there is any justification to have the said channel associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation.
6. The decision to shut down the channel, if rendered, would not in any way violate its members' freedom of speech. Nothing prevents the small group of people most closely associated with the channel from communicating in a private medium. Such a medium will, however, have no clout and no relation to Wikipedia.
7. As a side note, certain recusals in this case are requested.

--Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

addendum

I would like to add a word on the issue of the jurisdiction (or lack of it) raised by Fred and JPGordon. During the submission of the original, so called, "Giano case" the issues of jurisdiction were raised as objections to the acceptance. Nevertheless, ArbCom accepted that case over the concerns of its jurisdiction at the time. --Irpen 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DragonflySixtyseven

Oh god, I'm participating in an Arbcom case. I always said that if I was ever on Arbcom, my first act would be to ban everyone who voted for me, and my second act would be to issue lifetime bans to all participants in all disputes.

Anyway. My point about -en-admins is that, when we did our high-level implementation of WP:DENY last summer - rapidly deleting the categories, the templates, and related miscellany for certain notorious repeat vandals - that could not have been successfully planned in an open forum.

Also, sometimes it's good to be able to mention deleted articles in a place where you can be confident that other people will be able to read their content. DS 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Miltopia

A channel for discussing admin matters, if existent, should exist the same way the channels for discussing admin stuff on-wiki is - visible to everyone. Things requiring privacy don't need to be seen by admins who aren't involved anyway, and can be taken to pms and email. Are admins an official decision-making body, or just people with extra too to implement decisions? If the latter, there's no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to see their discussions.

The whole issue hasn't affected me at all, but I think this would be a good idea anyway. Miltopia 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved User:Agne27

As a non-admin, I have not been involved in some of conflicts relating to this channel but as a community member, I do share concerns about the lack of transparency with this channel. In contrast to things like the Arbitrator Mailing list, I do not see a clear need for a "closed door forum" for admins to "vent" and discuss matters that could drastically affect the community. I suppose that a fundamental question in this matter is what exactly an "admin" is and does the responsibility that the community vest upon them require for them the ability to work in isolation and apart from community oversight. I think that question affects many aspects of Wikipedia and would encourage the arbitrators to accept this case and help clarify the matter. Agne 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Doc glasgow

Firstly I'm not sure this has anything to do with arbcom. What are you being asked to arbitrate? This is a policy matter, and whether the community even has authority is unclear. More substantively: sure IRC can occasionally be nasty (although a few logs may be atypical); all human communication can be misused. Closing this channel won't stop that. Indeed, this argument has already led to a number of less transparent, less accountable IRC channels being set up. That worries me. Self-selecting cliques are more likely to cook conspiracies and group-think. At least in en-admins there is a cross-section of admins - and someone to slap nonsense. Most of what goes on is useless but harmless, and could certainly be done elsewhere. However, there are solid uses. For instance, OTRS can throw up cases where a lot of eyes on an article or user can help. This channel allows me to immediately poke a cross-section of trusted users and normally get someone with the time. I can't do that on-wiki without broadcasting to the world. And I may have to e-mail 50 users to get one to help. What is useful is that the channel isn't fully transparent, yet it has a wide and varied userbase. The choice isn't between discussion with a cabal on IRC, or sharing with the community of admins, the choice is between IRC and broadcasting to world on the open internet. Any attempt to open up the channel, or make logs accessible would render it useless.--Doc^g 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I suspect this case isn't really about IRC anyway, it is just round #19 in the same old 'Giano vs the world' case. I predict accepting it will lead to a train-wreck.--Doc^g 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

On behalf of the Arbcom Fred Bauder has said: "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable" This means the arbcom is not asked, or required to rule on whether the channel has been abused. That is accepted fact.

The Arbcom is asked to rule: "whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Wikipedia-related medium.". So the question is - what is done in that particular channel that cannot be done transparently on-wiki. This further begs the question: is it possible to have a page that is visible to all editors but only able to be edited by admins? To replace the disgraced channel. This is well within the Arbcom's remit.

Possibly the Arbcom does not have the power to shut the channel down. Although perhaps as a member of the arbcom James Forrester would do so if requested by the Arbcom. However, that is hypothetical, because if people are minded to form themselves into cliques and secret societies that cannot be avoided. However, what can be avoided and prevented is the formation of abusive and malicous cliques seemingly authorised by Wikipedia.

The Arbcom may feel that the multiple abuses executed in the channel, some very serious indeed, currently plastered all over the internet have brought Wikipedia into disrepute. The Arbcom may indeed go so far as to feel that the encyclopedia has now to distance itself from the channel to prevent further irreparable damage occurring to the encyclopedia.

Someone below says "...relevant confidential business could be carried out on other existing private IRC channels, or else on new channels created to fulfil the need". True, but that person does not address the question: is there a need? I find it hard to believe that those talking on IRC, do not, or could not have Wikipedia, simultaneously open on their computers, with half on eye on a newly formed admin page but if those same people prefer to watch IRC instead of Wikipedia, then wonders why they wish to be part of Wikipedia.

A flavour of the blinkered attitudes to the welfare of the encyclopedia within the channel are illustrated by the comment on this very page: " #19 in the same old 'Giano vs the world' case." Fortunately, the admin channel is not the rest of the world, it is not even the rest of Wikipedia, or even the majority of Wikipedia's admins. It is in fact a small, powerful, and very vocal collection of admins, arbitrators and their selected favourites who have grouped together to fulfil a mutual need to chat. As often happens when people have too much time on their hands chat turns to idle gossip, which in turn becomes malicious gossip, then those on the periphery of the inner golden circle become anxious to do favours to those at its heart, and this is, I suspect, is when the wrongful blocks have occurred. Such behaviour is a fact of life, that the arbcom cannot alter.

What the arbcom can do, is create a transparent place, exclusively for admins to edit and debate within Wikipedia. The former admin channel can then become in name as well as existant reality, secretive club for those admins and their friends minded to accept the invitations to join it. The channel would be in no way connected to Wikipedia. Simultaneously on Wikipedia itself the logic, philosophy, and indeed honesty, behind admin's actions will be transparent to all ordinary editors (and admins) not just the chosen few. Wikipedia cannot have sections and departments over which it has no control, which leave it open to the damaging allegations of the last few weeks. This the arbcom can control. Giano 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

We could get rid of the channel today without any protests from me; all relevant confidential business could be carried out on other existing private IRC channels, or else on new channels created to fulfil the need. However this is probably not a decision that can be made by the arbitration committee. The committee might consider accepting the case to consider any credible allegations of malfeasance coordinated or perpetrated on that or any other IRC channel, in email or by any other means (which would certainly be within the arbitration committee's scope. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MacGyverMagic

If it's the closed nature of the channel that's causing problems, then I think opening it up is a much better solution than full-out removal of the channel. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pschemp

I can't help feeling that this case is being directed at the channel out of frustration because certain people are upset that a few specific "wrongdoers" haven't been punished enough for their actions. Since their efforts at getting those people lynched have failed, they have taken a different approach and now want to punish everyone who uses the channel. Instead of punishing a lot of innocent people who find the channel extremely useful for matters that aren't appropriate for the entire to community to hear and removing the important support system and sanity check that this channel is, they should be filing arbitration on the specific people they feel have wronged them. As someone has put it quite aptly, "the bad stuff attributed to [the channel] would happen in the private back channels instead, but the good stuff would no longer be possible..."pschemp | talk 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

Whether the channel should be shut down is not in the purview of ArbCom, in my opinion. What is in the purview of ArbCom is the behavior of certain administrators, from gross incivility to secret blocks of users to the channel allowing access to non-administrators who are both trusted by the community (such as User:Werdna) and not trusted by the community (such as User:Kelly Martin and User:Tony Sidaway). ArbCom has stated that they've seen the logs. The community at large is failing or inable to act to deal with the issues, the administrators are not showing the ability to police their own regarding the channel, and that is where ArbCom is being requested to step in. This should not be intended to be a condemnation of anyone in the channel, but action against the problem elements for "off-wiki" behavior that causes "on-wiki" disruption.

Comment by Drini

This is impractical almost nonsensical.

ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Wikipedia-related medium. --Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, arbcom rules no need, shutdown. It won't change anything. People will join then "unofficial" channels like #inird . -- Drini 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Betacommand

I do not want to make a statement I try to avoid ArbCom but this issue forces me to stray from my normal behavior. I am a regular in -admin. Saying this that does not mean that I am a cabalist and I see the need for a admin/trusted user only channel. There have been times when a situation on wiki has happened and I have one idea to handle it. But I take it to -admin and discuss it there. Some times they agree other times they talk me out of making a very foolish mistake. The issue with access to the channel is that #wikipedia has fallen to the trolls and civil discussion on that channel is almost impossible along with the issue of wikiwatch.org having logbots in that channel recording everything and posting those to the web. That includes host mask of users that don't have a cloak. that can be very hazardous as most of the time that has a user's IP address in it. In regard to access of -admin I feel that if we can trust a user that they will not post the logs without asking and not to use what new admins who ask for advice against them. Such as Newadmin joins the channel and states that that user Foo has been incivil on page blah and that the new admin is thinking about blocking user foo for 24 hours because of that. while the rest of -admin doesnt see a blockable reason. and the channel convinces the new admin to just leave a note on the users talk page instead of blocking. I do not want user who will take that conversation and hold it against the new admin. As any place on wiki that could offend the user in question and make the admin look bad. Admins go to the channel to seek advice and assistance. If we can trust a user to not spread conversation that helps no one but uses -admins for a good faith place to discuss information I see no reason that a user in good standing and good faith should not be able to request access to the channel. I have seen -admins do A LOT OF HELP to me and other new admins but I do not think it has to be admin only. But I also do not want it turning into the the troll hole that #wikipedia is a majority of the time. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Duk

wikipedia-en-admins is usefull. It is also an official part of the english wikipedia (I'll repost this in /evidence if the case is accepted). The arbcom needs to demonstrate that the channel is accountable to the wikipedia community. They can do this by addressing the current complaints (from Giano, Irpin and whoever else there may be). --Duk 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by CBDunkerson

I see alot of partial and contradictory truths in this case. It is true that the 'admin channel' sometimes carries uncivil or improper discussion... and it is also true that people sometimes exaggerate this and/or launch equally uncivil and improper complaints about it on wiki. It is true that there is sometimes a need for admins to discuss matters privately... and true that any secret communication is inherently going to increase both suspicions of wrongdoing and the actual likelihood of such. It is true that this is more a matter for the community than ArbCom... but it is also true that the community has failed to resolve it (rather spectacularly). Et cetera. So, my suggestions: ArbCom should take the case and define standards for a 'Wikimedia administration' channel. ArbCom may or may not have jurisdiction over the existing channel, but it really doesn't matter... as they certainly have the authority to establish a 'new' channel... and if the design for such met with general approval the existing channel might just be 're-molded'. I think it would be possible to address the concerns raised by ALL sides by creating a moderated channel which everyone could read, but only specific ('voiced' in IRC parlance) users (presumably 'admins' from various Wikimedia projects) could write to, and having standards to take truly confidential matters to a private sub-channel (which is very easy to do). Thus, everyone could see the general discussion and verify that it was above-board, most people can't 'talk' so it keeps the channel from being spammed, and anything which truly needs to be kept private can be split out. People could even be temporarily given 'voice' to participate in discussions relevant to them. Yes, there would still be 'secret communication', but based on what I've seen I think the need for that is actually fairly rare... and IMO people are less likely to be suspicious if Jimbo comes onto the channel and says, 'I need to talk to some people about an OFFICE issue - meet me in <#PrivateChannelName> for a few minutes', than they are currently with everything on the channel being 'secret'. --CBD 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by jbolden1517

I'd like to add here that I essentially left wikipedia for 6 months because of an IRC abuse. I'm still fundamentally alienated from the community and my level of activity even now is 2% of what it was prior to being a victim of an attack that was coordinated on IRC (I should mention I'm not an IRC user, and have probably instant messaged 20x in the last 15 years), so that while the problems started on IRC the damage was done on wiki.

While arbcom has no authority to regulate IRC it most certainly has moral credibility on this issue and further can act to counter balance abuse which emerges from IRC. I'd urge arbcom to take this case and try and set forth policy about what is or is not acceptable conduct on IRC. If lobbying is unacceptable then it should be unacceptable on IRC. If people are supposed to be voting independently then they should not be simply acting based on secret evidence on a secret forum. jbolden1517^Talk 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

When you say "IRC abuse", are you speaking of #admins or something completely different? --Cyde Weys 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by InkSplotch

Burning down a house where conspirators once met yields nothing but a burnt out house. While I would like to see ArbCom clarify it's statement and position regarding their authority over the IRC channels (all of them bearing the Wikipedia name), the only claims I think are worthy of an arbitration case are the underlying complaints of conspiracy, improper admin behavior, and checkuser abuse. I suggest that ArbCom deny this case, since I don't suspect the more vocal complainants are truly willing to pursue those issues. They weren't in the previous arbitration involving these parties, and this new request doesn't convince me they are now. --InkSplotch 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I have a limited experience with the #wikipedia-en-admins, my employer forbids to use IRC on my workplace, so the most I can do most of the time is to start the client at home and read the logs. In the mid-September then there was the crisis caused by Carnildo's RFA and the blocks of Giano and Ghirlandajo explained as the consensus reached on IRC I decided to see if I am missing something by ignoring this channel and participated (mostly passively) in this channel for a week, since then I logged there a couple times more. This is my impression based on a limited experience.

80% of the time the channel is a social venue (that IMHO is nothing wrong about), 15% of the time it is a productive place helping our project. Some of the project-related things are easy to reproduce via onwiki boards, mail lists and private chats. Some are more difficult. E.g. it is easy to ask on a close channels:"Hey, do you think XX is a General Tojo's sock?" and expect to receive an answer from an admin experienced with this troublemaker. To ask the same question onwiki maybe a grave personal attack if I am incorrect. And it is sort of silly to send this question to hundreds of maillist users.

Still I was surprised that in a relatively short time I was on the channel it was quite a few times used against the principles that we are all trying to install onwiki: we are not driving productive contributors out, on the contrary we are bending backwards to keep them in; we assume good faith; wiki is not a battleground; we keep private data and especially checkuser results private; we speak openly for ourselves, meatpuppetting and conspiring are discouraged, etc. At that week I was on I saw Kelly Martin discussing private details obtained via checkuser of an admin (No, it was not Slim Virgin). I saw a sitting arbitrators and a few highly respected admins discussing the way to get rid of a productive user (Irpen) via a "slow administrative process that looked like arbcom to them". I saw serious discussions that if only "we" could push through one of "ours" into bureaucrats the pesky RFA opposers would be irrelevant, I saw a significant collective work on a reply in WP:AN over the Giano's block presented as an independent review of an uninvolved admin. IMHO it is too much for a one week. I believe the channel foster a wrong culture that harms the project. There are many new admins there who a learning to believe that the way the #wikipedia-en-admins do it is the right way to do the admin job. There are users who believe that every admin measure directed at them is a result of an IRC conspiracy (I would believe too if I were in their shoes). Something should be done.

IMHO the best way would be to change the culture of the channel. There should be enough people willing to object to unwiki ideas and if necessary bring wrong actions into some wiki scrutiny. I would suggest to accept to the channels a few trusted users who are vocal critics of the channel: e.g. Giano, Irpen or Baldwindrief. I believe they are contributed enough to believe that they would not leak the logs to WikiTruth or CPlot, but they would act if there is something improper doing on there and their perspective and experience might be quit beneficial for the channel. Additionally it might be useful to allow relevant logs of the channel to be used during the dispute resolution process if the logs are necessary.

Another way would be to close down the channel. It sure would be open under another name but at least all the participants would know that what they are doing is not necessary the best practice recommended by the project. Alex Bakharev 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Committee's dilemma, by ElC

The Committee faces a dilemma. On the one hand, they are obligated to examine highly related misconduct that exist both on-wiki and on-irc, but on the other, by their own admission, they are (at best) crippled in exercizing authority over the latter. Thus, such cases appear forever doomed to one-sided remedies. This problematic is fundamental to the open nature of the wiki (discretion with regards to sensitive matters notwithstanding), and the question is whether members of the Committee can muster the judicial imperative (and I would go so far as to say, the political will) to tackle such issues heads-on. Which is to say, be creative in finding solutions rather than remain in semi-statis on account of the constraints of jurisdictional proceduralism. The Committee has already offered one such creative remedy, although, quite possibly, a partial one as it is likely that there are not nearly enough Mackensens to keep watch over this particular channel. The question is whether the Committee can aim at a decision that can provide some sort of closure, both for the underlying issues as well as the particulars in this case. My problem with the rational behind Fred and other members' reasons for declining is that, by defering to the community, we are effectively left with endless debate with increasingly greater chances of it becoming circular, eliptical, repeticious, and ultimately, unresolvable. I strongly urge members of the Committee to take this plunge into these unfamilliar waters, to be creative, thereby sparing the community much time& energy. El_C 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/2/0/2)

• Reject, community policy issue. Fred Bauder 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Though certainly an unusual request, I would like to look at and clarify several issues, which I don't think we've addressed adequately yet. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept; there are a number of matters here (including some that we've introduced ourselves in the recent past) that warrant some clarification. Kirill Lokshin 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't believe this is within Arbcom's purview. There are other issues regarding the channel (and behavior on the channel) that might be within that purview, but the existential one is not in our control. Note: should the community wish to put the channel under the control of Arbcom, it would make some issues a lot easier to deal with. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Same as FloNight below. Convince me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. A Foundation and community policy issue. FloNight 08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Striking reject pending further statements that might better clarify why this belongs in front of ArbCom instead of the community. I will restate that this request seems like a policy matter to me unless someone can convience me otherwise. FloNight 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Flcelloguy and for the sake of transparency since the community should be aware of Committee members' thinking on this and related issues. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Things don't become Arbitration matters just because ArbCom members have strong feelings about them (as is certainly the case here). Charles Matthews 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept for clarification. We need to state explicitly what is within our purview and what is not, in terms of IRC. The arbcom may very well decide this isn't, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion

• I may be missing the obvious, but could the Committee please point to where the pledged review of Carnildo's promotion is stored, probably back in November? I'm sure he would like to put that behind him and I have not seen where the green light was given. -- nae'blis 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something that some of the members on the Committee back then may be able to answer better than I can, but if the Committee back then did indeed promise a review and it has not done so yet, then it should be done so now. (However, I haven't reviewed the situation and am relying on my memory - perhaps the intent of the Committee then was to only review if there were complaints received? Can someone clarify this?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that link, it does not specify that there has to be complaints, just says that it would be reviewed in two months.

We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom.

– Chacor 10:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us of our promise to review the administrative actions of Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). How about taking a look and reporting any problems here? Fred Bauder 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for appeal of precedent from LaRouche case

These sections from the "Lyndon LaRouche" arbcom decision strike me as vaguely worded, but have been subsequently interpreted to represent a general ban on the use of Executive Intelligence Review, Fidelio, and other publications associated with LaRouche as sources for Wikipedia articles. I believe that this interpretation is overbroad (see Jimbo's comment) and has had unintended negative effects on the project (see examples.)

I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in WP:RS. The Wikipedia policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly Executive Intelligence Review, which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from EIR may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in EIR, that should not be considered OR.--Tsunami Butler 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this being treated as a blanket ban? My reading is that the limitation on use of LaRouche-based sources only applies to Wikipedians who are supporters of LaRouche. If there are neutral editors with no connection to LaRouche who believe that these are the best available sources in any particular case, they may add them, unless there is some other decision or clarification of which I am not aware. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the examples I am citing, plus the answers I received in my earlier clarification request, you will see that it is indeed being treated as a blanket ban. The arbcom case in question makes no distinction between a supporter of LaRouche and a non-supporter (the "LaRouche 2" case bans two LaRouche supporters from editing LaRouche-related articles.) --Tsunami Butler 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some classes of sources are not presumed unsuitable, such as blogs and forums, but it's only a presumption. Editors can make a case for particular sources in individual instances.

The LaRouche material has several problems. His theories and methods are widely viewed as being fringe so they shouldn't be used as objective sources of information or interpretation for an encyclopedia. Just read the Washington Post article that give the Bailey quotation cited above, "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'". Bailey himself sued LaRouche for libel and received a cash settlement and a correction. Authors in the movement often write on obscure topics with novel viewpoints, so the volume of their material, and their availability on the web, could significantly impact Wikipedia if widely used for sources. Readers and editors unfamiliar with LaRouche's theories may not realize that an article they're reading is based on his views of the topic. Further, the LaRouche movement editors have a problematic history at Wikipedia. The main editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), was found to have been expertly controlling several sockpuppets while engaging in edit wars over plagiarized material and LaRouche theories. It appears likely that he is still editing despite his one-year ban. There now are several single purpose accounts devoted to LaRouche articles, so it seems as if there are more editors promoting LaRouche's POV than ever.

Material like this:[22], just doesn't belong as a source. On the other hand a user made a good case for linking to some animated geometry diagrams on a LaRouche site,[23] and so we kept it. However the 40-page LaRouche-written article that they illustrate is characteristic of his material and of why we avoid him as a source.[24] LaRouche sources are still in the articles that use them to source LaRouche opinions or statements, for example, Enéas Carneiro and October surprise conspiracy. So it's not a blanket ban.

I've recently removed dozens of inappropriate LaRouche sources from Wikipedia articles, links that appear to have been added within the last year. That's the action which has precipitated this appeal. The ArbCom's ruling on LaRouche sources exists to prevent fringe theories pushed by aggressive editors from skewing Wikipedia articles. It's needed now just as much as when it was adopted. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The ruling here is clear. Sources that originate with LaRouche may not be used in any articles except those associated with the LaRouche movement. Jimbo's clarification [25] backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. Thatcher131 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier clarification request. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Wikipedia. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement should be made. The Administrator' Noticeboard may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The list of examples that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was this one that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.

The dispute where I am a party is on the article Lyndon LaRouche, where I object to the removal of quotes from an interview given by Eugene McCarthy to the LaRouche publication EIR, quotes removed by editors Mgunn and 172, with the support of Will Beback, citing the arbcom ban. I can see no valid argument that quotes from an on-the-record, published interview should be considered OR. When I raised this before in my clarification request, I was told by Fred Bauder that "People who follow these things know." I found this explanation less than complete. --Tsunami Butler 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason is straightforward:

• A Lyndon Larouche publication is not a reliable source.
• The interview is from a Lyndon Larouche publication.
• Therefore, the interview is unreliable.

• To see how it fits, substitute "Blogspot posting", "personal communication", "forum posting" or other unreliable source for "Lyndon Larouche publication" above, irrelevant qualifiers like "published" on "on-the-record" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, LaRouche publications are often interesting and useful. The problem is that, with few exceptions, they are original research, sometimes excellent, informative original research, but still original research. For whatever reason, the LaRouche movement is not integrated with either the academic or journalistic world, thus there is little of the give and take with makes up peer review. Bottom line, it isn't who uses them, it's what they are, unreliable sources, not because they are not sometimes brilliant, but because they are original research. Fred Bauder 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RS, it seems to me that EIR is both "publication with a declared editorial policy" and an example of "published news media," so that there may well be cases where it would be appropriate as a source. I do not think that it is accurate to assert that EIR is "not integrated with the journalistic world," although it is cited far more frequently in the foreign than in the domestic press.

The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to EIR. It essentially makes EIR an exception to WP:RS and WP:OR, by saying that citations from EIR may not be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that EIR is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do not think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the "LaRouche 1" case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude EIR as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --Tsunami Butler 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [26], is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that EIR warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing EIR warnings. Therefore, for a time, EIR was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.

An unreliable source is not wrong all the time (in that case it would still give reliable information - reliably wrong), but is a source where it is impossible (or very hard) to determine a-priori whether it is right or wrong. Thus, the existance of some correct predictions is no evidence for the reliability of a source. --Stephan Schulz 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the issue before the ArbCom is a special case where an ArbCom decision, or rather a subsequent interpretation of that decision, has made an unusual policy. Uninvited Company asked if it were a "blanket ban"; Thatcher131 has confirmed that, at least by his interpretation, it is. Fred Bauder, who to my knowledge is the only other actual ArbCom member to weigh in in this discussion, is now saying that LaRouche publications are OR "with few exceptions."

Note that I am not proposing any changes in WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, or WP:RS. I am proposing that the blanket ban be overturned, and let those policies work as they would under any other circumstances. It is on this issue that I request a formal hearing. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than abrogate the remedy in this case I would like to see the sound principles involved in arriving at it applied to the other "walled gardens" which from time to time are improperly used as sources for information on Wikipedia. For example, the material in the People's Daily, a good part of which is simply made up. Extreme Zionist material is another example, as are similar nationalistic, religious, and political writings. Indeed, any intellectual work which is based not on facts but on premises. I suppose, taken to the limit, that would include much of what passes for knowledge. We would need to develop policy which insists on some contact with reality, but avoids demanding perfection in that regard. Fred Bauder 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are proposing the drafting of a universal policy which would encompass LaRouche sources, that makes sense to me. But if Wikipedia is to continue to have a specific policy which applies uniquely to LaRouche publications, I ask for a formal appeal.

I am also requesting some sort of relief on the specific issues I raised. The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. I don't think the arbcom should condone it. I am also asking for some sort of intervention with respect to Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, where there are perennial edit conflicts because of a few highly aggressive critics, who have opened accounts as editors at Wikipedia and wish to load those articles with self-citations. If it is forbidden to supply material, such as the aforementioned quotes from interviews, from LaRouche publications in response, it becomes very difficult to balance the articles, creating problems from the standpoint of both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Tsunami Butler 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this issue needs further discussion, although I'm unsure if ArbCom is the right venue. As these kinds of otherwise considered crank sources become more popular and, to a degree, accepted, it is important for us to acknowledge them, so that the integrity of our NPOV policy is maintained. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions clarification

The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."

1. What is a "responsible party?"
2. What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes "disruptive?"

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result. Fred Bauder 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So nothing really specific, per se? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. Fred Bauder 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address. Fred Bauder 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ned, in this situation the result was "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) Thatcher131 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a good many of us thought it was obvious from day one, but a big problem was how it appeared to people outside of the debate (specifically, how it was being represented outside of the debate). Not only that, but more than once we had "announced" an end/consensus during the debate, so technically we did do the very thing suggested. I understand and agree with the meaning of the statement, but this statement as a tool to help avoid such conflicts in the future doesn't seem very helpful to me. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing? At this point you can take a future conflict to arbitration enforcement and say: "see, here we discussed a policy, and here's the consensus, and here we announced it per the Naming Conventions case decision, and Thatcher is still move and edit warring over it, so please enforce the decision by blocking Thatcher until he gets the message." At least it clearly puts the burden of proof on the minority to show that a consensus was not reached, rather than on the majority to prove that consensus exists. Thatcher131 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA advocates' status in cases

Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Wikipedia policies. Fred Bauder 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, that's what I myself do: add "User: Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) AMA advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment • I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. nobs 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Neigel asks "can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop[?]". It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; anyone can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? PurplePlatypus 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. Raul654 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. Raul654 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel that Advocates could be of use, but currently and in the past they have not been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them. I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is why we thought in our last AMA meeting to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as "In short, the AMA is useless," but I cannot deny that historically such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the WP:DR process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined).
  
  Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Wikipedia) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have already relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.
  
  Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on WP:DR. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Wikipedia a better place.
  
  -- (AMA Coordinator) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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