From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Weighing scales

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:


Current requests

J Di

Initiated by 1B6 at 09:36 AM, 29 January 2007 [Reformatted --The Uninvited Co., Inc.]

Involved parties

J Di

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [Replaced "Yes" with link --The Uninvited Co., Inc.]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


Statement by 1B6

I request that user:J Di loses her/his adminship, he/she has made numerous incivil comments towards other users, and violated the 3RR rule, on many occasions.

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

This dispute appears to arise from this and the ensuing threads on User talk:J Di, also found on User talk:1B6. The discussion reveals no evident misconduct by J Di, incivility by 1B6, and a complete lack of any prior dispute resolution attempts. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Majorly

It appears to be a dispute of sorts that is the "last straw", among many other disputes J Di has been in. I'll happily provide evidence of J Di making incivil comments, and threatening to make inappropriate actions. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Contacted 1B6. Thatcher131 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Decline. This request is utterly without merit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • UC, perhaps you could wait for me to provide my evidence before you make a decision. Thanks! --Majorly (o rly?) 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest you file your own case. Requests for arbitration are not running discussions. It is my expectation that any request will be complete when it is filed. I expect that the involved parties' responses will be complete when they file them. This is not WP:RFC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Seems reasonable. I will do that. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, no substantive complaint here. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Nothing for us to work on here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, per above. Paul August 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, unwarranted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:SuperDeng

Initiated by User:SuperDeng at 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Woohookitty notified Fred Bauder 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I am perma blocked by the one admin Woohookitty (talk · contribs) and was told to go here by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs).

Statement by SuperDeng (talk · contribs)

I want to be unblocked. I have been blocked now for 9 months, surely I have been thought my lesson.

I was blocked by Woohookitty (talk · contribs) in June 2006 he alone perma blocked me.

To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.

It has come to my attention after reading the text several times that no where is it actual stated what I do/did on wiki. Well it is simple 85% of my edits were reverts of very simple vandalism a number change here a word removal there sex, dick and boobs there most of my edits were reverting extremely simple vandalism. 10% were adding things for example the graphs on the Eastern Front (World War II) article, originally they were all in colour but then someone pointed out that colour blind people might have problems with it. The real problems came with the last 5% which were content dispute and it was those 5% that caused so much drama.

I was blocked by him for a few reasons here is the short version

1 Sock puppetry, I really regret doing this and if I am unblocked I will not do it again. And I will work hard on resolving any underlying problems. I just want to edit wikipedia again and if I am allowed I will try my utmost not to cause trouble. I apologize for the past sockpupetry and swear not to ever do it again. Also I agree to sock puppetry probation and to a mentorship.

2 Woohookitty (talk · contribs) has been no angel and has breached many wikipedia rules, so it is only logical to remove me . This matter was for a brief period on the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard and since Woohookitty (talk · contribs) had blocked he was free to write what ever he wanted in his own narrow way with many things that were not true and numerous personal attacks on me. The most obvious being perma blocking me which no single normal admin is allowed. Also he has perma blocked other users, but most of them were simple vandals with few edits. And what is interesting to note is that he continuous to not tell the truth and make personal attacks on me up to this very day, and he also changes his story when it becomes clear that he was not telling the truth in the first place.

Bellow I have linked different statements by him and then links proving that he was not telling the truth it is as simple as pie to click on them and see that he is allergic to the truth.

Some examples of personal attacks by Woohookitty (talk · contribs)
"Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post" [2]
"He's not going to change [3]
"He isn't going to change." [4]
"Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1" [5]
Examples that Woohookitty (talk · contribs) does not want any insight into what he has been doing. And extra hard lobbying from his part to avoid at all cost of this matter coming up to arbcom level because then someone might actually see his behaviour and punish him for it.
"The fact that this is even being discussed is completely ridiculous." [6]
"Go to ArbCom". WHY? So they can just confirm what I've said?" [7]
" As I stated above, some (including dmcdevit, who I respect greatly) have suggested arbcom but why waste their time on this?" [8]
"My thoughts exactly. I mean, if this was just one vio and then sockpuppet use, I could see unblocking and giving him another shot. But he's been at this for a year now and yet he just continues on his merry way. He isn't going to change." [9]
Examples of things said by Woohookitty (talk · contribs) that are completely not true.
"He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution." Woohookitty (talk · contribs) was referring to Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs)
Proof that "He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution." is not true [10]
There are others but one is plenty to prove that Woohookitty (talk · contribs) is not telling the truth
"He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes." He is referring to me trying to add references to the Stalin page I did not make 8 reverts but EDITS. Back in May 2006 when they had just changed the system from the old reference system to the new one. Also that matter in it self is very complicated it was about the death toll of how many stalin killed and Ultramarine (talk · contribs) is very skilled at not making reverts but adding templates and tags, in the end long after I left the death toll he left because it became clear that he was wrong when others came to the talk page and explained the numbers for him. Also I did do some reverts during these days but not 8 within 90 minutes. Also there was a long discussion going on the talk page during this period and after this period as well. The whole thing started with me re adding things that had gotten deleted, I often look at a page and compare the latest 500 or so edits to see if something has been deleted.
Proof that "he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes." is false

[11] edit

[12] edit

[13] edit

[14] edit

[15] edit

[16] edit

[17] edit

[18] edit

[19] edit

Here are all edits during the time frame by all users who edited during the 24th of May 2006

[20] Mikkalai 00:08, 24 May 2006
[21] IP 02:57, 24 May 2006
[22] Sango123 03:04, 24 May 2006
[23] SuperDeng 10:37, 24 May 2006
[24] SuperDeng 10:51, 24 May 2006
[25] Ultramarine 12:05, 24 May 2006
[26] Mattbrundage 17:15, 24 May 2006
[27] SuperDeng 17:44, 24 May 2006
[28] C33 18:06, 24 May 2006
[29] SuperDeng 18:09, 24 May 2006
[30] SuperDeng 18:12, 24 May 2006
[31] SuperDeng 18:20, 24 May 2006
[32] SuperDeng 18:22, 24 May 2006
[33] Ultramarine 19:10, 24 May 2006
[34] C33 19:17, 24 May 2006
[35] Jareand 19:33, 24 May 2006
[36] Jareand 19:35, 24 May 2006
[37] SuperDeng 20:22, 24 May 2006
[38] SuperDeng 20:24, 24 May 2006
[39] Ultramarine 20:29, 24 May 2006
[40] SuperDeng 20:33, 24 May 2006
[41] SuperDeng 20:35, 24 May 2006
[42] Ultramarine 20:36, 24 May 2006
[43] Ultramarine 20:38, 24 May 2006
[44] SuperDeng 20:40, 24 May 2006
[45] SuperDeng 20:44, 24 May 2006
[46] IP 20:45, 24 May 2006
[47] Digitalme 20:46, 24 May 2006
[48] IP 20:49, 24 May 2006
[49] Keelm 20:49, 24 May 2006
[50] Ultramarine 20:52, 24 May 2006
[51] SuperDeng 20:57, 24 May 2006
[52] Ultramarine 21:03, 24 May 2006
[53] SuperDeng 21:10, 24 May 2006
[54] SuperDeng 21:12, 24 May 2006
[55] Ultramarine 21:19, 24 May 2006
[56] SuperDeng 21:24, 24 May 2006
[57] SuperDeng 21:24, 24 May 2006
[58] C33 21:26, 24 May 2006
[59] Art LaPella 23:52, 24 May 2006

About the Sock puppetry;
Some of the sock puppets are mine and some are not for example take Daborhe (talk · contribs) he was blocked longed before my case come up on the request check user case and no clerk said he was mine but Constanz (talk · contribs) (who now is also on this page, scroll down to Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945) just added the tag to my page and he "became" mine. [60] [61]
Also lokqs (talk · contribs) was created AFTER my original block was lifted, a 2 month block, about a week or so after and no edits had been made by SuperDeng so user lokqs could been seen new start but that did not matter it was called a sock puppet and I again was blocked for a month.
The Ultimate proof that Woohookitty (talk · contribs) knows that he did was wrong. Is that once he found out that Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) had granted me a chance to appeal Woohookitty (talk · contribs) "left" wiki, probably thinking that the jug was up and that it was only a matter of time before he got blocked he changed his own user page to "I'm on an indefinite Wikibreak. I really don't need this place right now" [62]
But when he noticed that I he had not been blocked he of curse then went directly back to lobbying so that I would not have any say. [63]
And since it is all or nothing for him he might as well exaggerated and say things that are not true [64]


I just want to edit wikipedia again and if I am allowed I will try my utmost not to cause trouble. I apologize for the past sockpupetry and swear not to ever do it again. Also I agree to sock puppetry probation and to a mentorship. To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.

Statement by Woohookitty (talk · contribs)

There is a basic fundamental flaw in the statement above. That flaw is that it assumes that I am the only one who has ever blocked SuperDeng and that I'm the only one who has had problems with SuperDeng and that somehow I'm on this "crusade" to stop Deng. Look at his block log. The idea that I blocked him just out of my own volition is pretty silly. He's been blocked by Katefan0, William Connolley, User:Stifle, NSLE, User:Alex Bakharev and User:Thatcher131. That is a very extensive list of blocking admins for just one user. And he's been blocked for much more than sockpuppetry. He was blocked for 3RR, disruption, personal attacks and for stalking User:Kurt Leyman. We had a situation from May to July 2006 where Kurt and Deng followed each other all over the site and reverted each other (best evidence of this is in Deng's contribs where almost 40 edits in a row where reverts of Kurt at various articles. He got blocked 72 hours for that). And again, this isn't just me. Since the final blocking of Deng in late November, it has reviewed by several other admins, as you can see [[65]] and on Deng's talk page. They include User:JzG, the aforementioned User:Thatcher131 and others.

And then we have the sockpuppet use. You can see the list of confirmed and suspected socks here. And again, I'm not making this stuff up. This is the list of CheckUser requests for Deng. It's quite extensive. And as you can see, the sockpuppets have generally been confirmed, even ones that weren't even being asked about, like The Green Fish. And again, I don't have CheckUser rights. These are other people who are confirming the sockpuppet use. And btw, User:Lokqs was confirmed as SuperDeng via CheckUser.

I'm now going to answer the 8 reverts in 90 minutes thing. Hate to tell Deng this but I wasn't referring to what he thinks I am referring to. In fact, he wasn't even blocked for what he is referring to. He was blocked on May 18th by another user (User:Stifle) for disruption at Joseph Stalin. He was then blocked on the 28th of May by me for the constant reverts of Kurt Leyman as mentioned above. That's where the 8 times in 90 minutes came from, not from the Stalin article. And actually, it was more than 8. Much more. From 00:32 on May 28th to 1:09 on May 28th, we have the following reverts: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. That's an incredible amount of reverts in a short time. Almost all of the reverts were of Kurt Leyman. That is the "someone" I was referring to in this post. So it was actually much much more than 8.

And you know, the "attacks" he refers to above weren't attacks. They were true statements. Deng first edited as User:DengXiaoPing in late November 2005. His first block (which isn't reflected in the block log listed above) was in January 2005. So. Was it "from the start". Maybe not. But it was certainly early on in his time here.

In the end, I think you can see the main problem with SuperDeng. He never takes responsibility. It's never ever his fault. All of the blocks were the faults of others. Either it was Kurt Leyman's fault or mine or some other admin. In the end, even in his statement above, there is no evidence that he didn't violate policy. It's all "it's woohookitty's fault". And as I said, I'm not making his policy violations up. He's stalked. He's violated 3RR. He's been guilty of a number of personal attacks. This one is indicitive of his general attitude towards others. They are always "wrong" or "pro-Nazi" or somehow at fault. This is another one where he calls another user "wrong". And yes he requested a Request for Comment (on my advice I might add). But that's really all he's done in terms of working with others. This is an example of how he interacts with others.

Have I been perfect when it comes to Deng? No. Have I been a bit "bitchy" at times? Yes. But you know. He's a very very frustrating user. As you can see on his talk page, it's not like I came into this with guns blazing. On the contrary. I've actually attempted to help Deng several times when it comes to Wikipedia policy. But again, his response is usually to attack and to assume the worst. Did I think about leaving when the prospect of this case came about. Yes. Why? Because I have presented evidence of Deng's misbehavior at least 6-7 times. To AN. To AN/I. To admins reviewing his case. And honestly, I'm tired of it. I have gotten nothing about grief from this user since my early contacts with him. Just one example if from Feb. 11th. I had protected the Eastern Front (World War II) page due to a request for protection. Well, one of the users involved (Constanz) asked if he could request an edit to be made. Well this is a normal request. But somehow this became Constanz being a "friend" of mine as you can see here. So you know. The prospect of doing this yet again didn't exactly thrill me.

One more thing. Up above, Deng says several times that I've said that he won't change. It's not a personal attack. In fact, it's absolutely true. That statement up above about his "underlying problems" is the first time I've seen Deng even acknowledge that he's done something wrong. He is the exact same user I first dealt with in 2005. He's had more chances that any user I know of. Even while he had his first long block last June, he couldn't resist making sockpuppets, thus violating more policies. He is not going to change.

So I really hope that his block is upheld. Because. Honestly, I don't see where another chance is going to change anything. I mean. You know it's a problem user when he thinks that I am talking about one date where he made so many reverts that it might've violated policy when I was actually talking about another day when he did made so many reverts (and btw, he made 15+ edits to the Stalin article on the 24th, not 8). And there are others. And I'm sorry that this is so lengthy. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

  • Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. No evidence that the community ban was not entirely appropriate, or that the user has learnt anything from the experience. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, I admire SuperDeng's respect for our procedure and acknowledge his sincere desire to contribute to Wikipedia. However, we are not going to smite the blocking administrators, or even require them to undergo an inquisition. The focus would have had to have been on sincere expressions of regret for past actions, accompanied by some insight into how he could improve his behavior. Fred Bauder 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. The community ban seems appropriate. FloNight 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 09:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Paul August 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Initiated by Alecmconroy at 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Alecmconroy (talk · contribs)

Rangeley and NuclearZer0 have repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia by their behavior on Iraq War and related articles.

NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) = Zer0faults (talk · contribs) = NuclearZer0

NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Despite being placed on probation, NuclearZer0 has continued to disrupt the encyclopedia-- he has been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. On the Iraq war article, he has engaged in edit warring, presenting his own political POV as fact rather than opinion. NuclearZer0 has on multiple occasions cited a particular straw poll as support for his actions, despite knowing that the poll's results were obtained through vote-stacking. He continued to knowingly misrepresenting consensus using this poll, falsely claiming his actions were supported by consensus in excess of "25-to-1", even after an administrator had reiterated that the poll was completely invalid. Similarly, he has repeatedly misrepresented consensus through "creative counting"-- knowingly excluding the opinions of users who posted before or after a narrow time window.

Example edits from NuclearZer0
  • Repeated reinsertions, edit warring, presenting POV as fact: [94][95][96]
  • Knowingly citing a consensus based on a poll obtained through vote-stacking, despite multiple admins who reinterated no consensus was acheived.: [97]
  • Misrepresenting consensus through "creative counting": [98]
Rangeley (talk · contribs)

Rangeley has engaged in the most egregious edit warring that I have ever personally encountered. He has reinserted the disputed text some __seventy-eight__ times. In doing so, he has repeated presented his own opinion political POV as fact rather than opinion. He has repeatedly engaged in vote-stacking for the purposes of justifying his actions-- in one instance, for example, he contacted every single member of the [99] to get them to vote in a poll. He continued to cite this poll, even after several admins reiterated to him that its results were completely invalid. Despite being issued direct warnings by several admins never to engage in similar conduct, Rangeley has contined to engage in vote-stacking, selectively contacting individuals likely to support his position rather than filing an RFC. Similarly, he has repeatedly misrepresented consensus through "creative counting"-- knowingly excluding the opinions of users who posted before or after a narrow time window.

Example edits from Rangeley
  • Repeated reinsertions, edit warring, presenting POV as fact:
[100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] + about 60 more edits just like them.
  • Vote-stacking in a straw poll: [110]
  • Citing the result of a poll (in which he had engaged in aggressive vote-stacking) after being told by multiple admins that the poll was invalid:
    "And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the poll which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before."[111]

Statement by Rangeley

I do not beleive that the "previous attempts at dispute resolution" he has listed are adequate proof that he has made an effort to resolve this dispute. Several of them were straw polls, for instance, some were RFC's dealing directly with a content dispute and not this issue in particular, and the one dealing directly with Nuclearumpf was about a different issue entirely. We are holding a discussion currently and trying to reach a consensus on this dispute.

Further, I take issue with the claims he has waged against me. I did contact people within a group in June, and after GTBacchus talked to me about it I apologized for it, and took the warning not to do it again seriously. [112] I did not "votestack" yesterday, I contacted several members who participated in creating the previous consensus - most of whom disagreed with me before later coming to a middleground with me and others - as well as contacted several members, Petercorless and Tewfik in particular, who I saw as objective, uninvolved editors who had put considerable effort into the Somalian and Lebanese war articles and shown themselves to be fair. Here is an example of my invite to discussion [113], where I merely ask for input without any leading on one way or another. Alec also invited people, but arguably led them on with his language [114]. However, when I invited people, he restated a bad faith assessment in saying "Others say that you've just taken a moment to recruit meatpuppets to do your editing for you." Whoever these "others" are, their bad faith views did not deserve restating.

As well as these, he took my quote out of context for a second time. The statement he linked to, [115] shows me point out that he was wrong to state a straw poll to be a consensus, and further, it was not even the most recent poll taken. He did the very same thing here [116].

I have been at Wikipedia for quite a while, and worked on this article for quite a while. 70+ reverts is a lot no matter how you look at it, however taken under the context of a nearly year long involvement, it is a bit easier to understand. I have been committed to making sure that verifiable information is presented at Wikipedia, not my "personal convictions." I think this is a bad faith assessment of what I have been working for. I restated most recently my view here [117], to summarize, a campaign is definable by its maker ("The Great Leap Forward" was definable by its maker as well), things are a part of the campaign as determined by the government carrying it out - regardless of whether something is a "great leap forward" or "fighting terror" in actuality. The US government, in authorizing the use of force, did so to "prosecute the War on Terrorism" [118], this is verifiable. It is therefore proper to state it here as part of the US-led campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by NucleaUmpf

Here is the run down:

For Inclusion:

  • Rangeley
  • KevinPuj
  • Top Gun
  • Publicus
  • TheFEARgod
  • Tewfik
  • NuclearUmpf
  • GTBacchus


The items stood in the template for months with no problem. Alecmconroy appears and decides there is a concensus because 40 peopl ehave reverted the changes over the past year. However he ignores that of those 40 people many were sockpuppets, which was pointed out, some had changed their minds after having removed it. There was a past concensus that formed in a 25-2 manner for its inclusion. After this was reached there was a peace. Alecmconroy is trying to subvert that by now coming here. PS this si a content dispute and the talk page shows everyone trying to talk to Alecmconroy, but him stating he will not accept it in the infobox under any circumstances, period, not really Wikipedia spirit. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note I tried pointing out that many of the past edits, from Novemeber, was me reverting a sockpuppet vandal.[119] but it seems Alecmconroy felt it was vandalism to point this out.[120] I would have thought if he was interested in the truth he would have left those edits in. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bobblehead

To be fair, prior to editting the article on January 26[121][122] and 27[123], Nuclear/Zero has not been involved in the discussion or editting on Iraq War since November. [124][125] So while Nuclear was involved in previous conflicts on Iraq War (as was I), it's a bit disingenuous to include him in this arbcom case for actions he performed as Zer0faults months ago. --Bobblehead 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by KevinPuj

It is unfortunate that an RFAr had to be brought in when it appeared that many editors were coming closer to a compromise on the proposed wording at the heading of the infobox. I would like to hear the committee's comments on not only the behavior but the issue itself. KevinPuj 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Timeshifter

Alecmconroy compiled a list of 38 people who did not want "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox. Someone else linked to a May 2006 discussion and poll showing that many people did not want it in the infobox. I pointed out that WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism require that the use of the word "terrorism" be put in context. That has already been done in a long section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The wikipedia guideline on the use of the word terrorism can not be met in the limited space of an infobox. It would take at least a paragraph. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. This wikipedia guideline has been discussed in several talk sections, too: [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]

I came into this dispute later than others. My interest was in how the wikipedia terrorism guideline did, or did not, apply. That specific guideline did not seem to have been discussed previously. There was a June 2006 discussion, but it was not about WOT being in the infobox. It was about whether the Iraq War was a part of WOT. That June 2006 discussion seems to be subject to various interpretations. The May 2006 discussion and poll said something interesting. It mentioned that using the same logic, the Iraq War could be labeled in the infobox as something like this: "Part of Bush's campaign against the Axis of Evil." The phrase "War on Terrorism" is offensive to many people in both the Western and non-Western world, because it is such an obvious propaganda slogan. Wikipedia should never put propaganda slogans in the narrative voice of any wikipedia page. It must be put in context.

Another issue is that WP:NPOV would also require the infobox to have the campaign names of the many insurgent groups from Iraq and from outside Iraq who are now fighting in Iraq. Also the nations and groups outside Iraq who are aiding insurgents in the Iraq War. Shall we put "Part of Iran's long campaign against the Great Satan" in the infobox? What are the campaign names of the foreign Sunni Wahhabi fighters? The issue is not whether these slogans and campaign names exist or not. But how Wikipedia uses these phrases. Many Iranians, Americans, Saudi Arabians, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Shiites, etc. do not agree with the minority viewpoints of Bush and the other more radical religious extremists who are fighting inside Iraq, or who are aiding combatants in Iraq. Moderates on all sides would say "that is not *my* campaign, so why is *my* affiliation being smeared by association?"

I think wikipedia needs a guideline saying that infoboxes should not have inflammatory info in them. That info needs to be put in context in the text of articles according to WP:NPOV.

In their lists or statements about the number of editors who are against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out against it just in the last month or 2:

  • savidan
  • csloat
  • Timeshifter
  • Alecmconroy
  • UnfairlyImbalanced
  • Bobblehead
  • Wgbc2032

Also, some editors talk about some kind of previous "consensus" or "agreement". I have yet to find any kind of consensus or agreement about the WOT being in the infobox. See my previous points and links about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them.

I am not saying that "War on Terrorism" is not a phrase being used. The wikipedia guideline says this:

Not encyclopedic:
  • X is a terrorist group.
  • Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
  • After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

The USA or Bush or old Congressional resolutions (before the war and before the insurgency!) make a blanket statement that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism". Putting it in the Iraq War infobox means that all opponents of the USA in this war are being called terrorists. That is in the "not encyclopedic" list. --Timeshifter 11:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Publicus

This incident referred by Alecmconroy is primarily a discussion of content. The discussion by all parties on this "part of war on terrorism" issue has been heated, but I have not seen any behavior issues which call for a Request for Arbitration.

In my opinion, Rangeley has merely been a tenacious and amazingly consistent editor, especially in keeping up the original agreement on the content. The fact that he has had to make so many edits on this, has more to do with knee-jerk editing by new editors to the fray (of which I was once one of those knee-jerk editors opposed to Rangeley's position) instead of any problems on his part.

This incident should just be allowed to run its course on the Iraq War discussion page. Thanks. Publicus 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Savidan

I think that you can see from the Request for comment I filled back in December that basically everyone who arrived at the article took issue with the inclusion only to have Rangeley reply about three times to each user to the point of making the discussion virtually unreadable. He is an experienced editor, with some great contributions, but whose judgement on this issue I believe has been clouded by his declared biases.

There has never been a consensus for the inclusion of "Part of the W.O.T." in the infobox, only a few persistent editors consistently reinserting it. The June poll that Rangelely continues to cite as the consensus for including it had nothing to do with infoboxes, with most of the voters Rangeley cites as "support" expressing very complicated views (e.g. "So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism.") about things that should be included in article texts, not infoboxes.

The May Poll, which actually was about the article in question came out 15-11 against, and a lot of the "for" voters were voting for "Part of the W.O.T. series" which is an extremely different matter. Other statements in this RFC summarize the current consensus pretty well.

Users like Rangeley have repeatedly treated the matter as a fait accompli and denied consensus against the inclusion of the sentence in the infobox as if there were some prior consensus for its inclusion which there clearly was not. This entire matter has detracted from improving the substance of the article, which is where the connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorism should be discussed. Given the diverse and complicated points of view explicated in this section of the article, to include such a terse and misleading statement in the infobox is a mockery to npov. Savidan 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0)

  • Accept. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. There has been no useful RFC on this matter, and once the content dispute is elided, there's not enough left for us to pass any remedies we haven't already passed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline per UninvitedCompany. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, per UninvitedCompany. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. This seems to be essentially a content dispute. The issues surrounding conduct seem secondary, and prior conduct dispute resolution insufficient. Paul August 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, per UC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Prem rawat

Initiated by NikWright2at 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages [[131]] [[132]]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement Nik Wright2

Fairness and Balance

Along with others I am named in a document (which is claimed to be a sworn affidavit) which is linked from a Wikipedia article Prem_rawat and a User talk page User_talk:Gstaker, elements of that document are defamatory. The article Prem_rawat itself carries no acknowledgment that there are active critics of the biographical subject of the article (Prem Pal Singh Rawat) and all links to sources which acknowledge that there are active critics and which represent the views of those critics have been determinedly removed by supporters of Prem Rawat.

I have sought resolution of this issue by (a) contacting the Wikimedia Foundation: see Point 8. Attempted Resolution 1 User_talk:Nik_Wright2 and (b) by reference to the Mediation Cabal. see: Point 9. These two attempts are now locked in an apparent Logic Loop of circular referral. see: Point 12. Wikipedia Logic Loop.

I do not claim a position of NPOV - my role as a Wikipedia editor is 'under protest' as it appears to be the only way I can establish a 'fair and balanced' treatment of 'my position' - in this sense it is Wikipedia, (by linking to material which defames me) that has sought me out, rather than my having come to Wikipedia in any disinterested sense. I am entirely happy to be known as a critic of Prem Rawat and his organisations, I simply wish that a level playing field should exist within Wikipedia, between the subject of a Wikipedia biography and those whom the subject of the article and or her/his supporters, wish to attack. see: Point 3.

Issues Raised in the Mediation Cabal

A. Imbalance of editing: Rigid policing by Prem Rawat's supporters. see: Point 1 [[133]]

B. Existence of a web ring - multiple sites interlinking and governed by the same POV. see: Point 1 [[134]]

C. Nature of the relationship between the Prem Rawat supporting organisations and the websites quoted as sources within the article. see: Point 2 [[135]]

D. Veracity of the defaming document. see: Point 4. [[136]]

E. Status of the 'publisher' of the defamatory document. see: Point 5. [[137]]

F. Status of Wikipedia editors relative to legal action entailing the defaming document. see Point 6. [[138]]

Other Pertinent Issues

The matter of paid representatives of organisations and individuals acting as editors of Wikipedia articles about those organisations and individuals is of current concern. In this respect User Jossi [[139]] has been open about his relationship with the Rawat promotional movement [[140]] however perhaps some examination of his role in Rawat articles may be required despite his candour.

Statement by Jossi (talk · contribs)

The issue at hand is if the inclusion of a web link on the article Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), whose linked page includes an affidavit by a third party filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, in which Mr Wright2 is mentioned, is compliant with Wikipedia content policies or not.

Mr Wight asserts that "I am named in a document (which is claimed to be a sworn affidavit) which is linked from a Wikipedia article". This is incorrect:

  1. The Prem Rawat article does not mention Mr. Wright's name
  2. The web page linked from the Prem Rawat article does not mention Mr. Wright
  3. The page in question contains a link to an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, by a person named John MacGregor. MacGregor is not affiliated with Prem Rawat or a related organization.
  4. There is no direct link from the article to the affidavit
  5. This affidavit names Mr. Wright in a manner that Mr. Wright may find objectionable.

As the Wikipedia article does not contain a direct link to that affidavit, Mr. Wright's would be better advised to to contact the person that filed that affidavit, rather than pursue dispute resolution in this forum.

This is the passage in question (my highlight):

J. Gordon Melton describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics. Some of the criticism leveled at Rawat derives from Robert Mishler, former President of DLM (who died in 1979) who made allegations against Rawat about purported anxiety .According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.[1] Another scholar, James Lewis, notes a number of ex-members made claims of brainwashing and mind control.[2] In an FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them. '[3]

  1. ^ Melton. Encyclopedic Handbook pp.144-5
    "However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner [sic], the former president of the Mission who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges [...] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."
  2. ^ Lewis The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, p.210
    "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control"
  3. ^ "Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey"

It should be noted that the affidavit in question was at a certain point mentioned in one of the articles. The mention of the affidavit was removed last year (September 2006 see diff) after a discussion that included an extended exchange about the lack of reliable secondary sources on the subject of the small group of "active critics" referred by Mr Wright. (added ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal

Mr. Wright filed a mediation request with the mediation cabal, but was not satisfied with the process, mainly using that process to air his grievances against Prem Rawat and related organizations, myself and other editors (which the mediator ether factored out or stroke them out). See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07_Prem_Rawat_Named_Critic.

Other issues

As for Mr. Wright2's assertion about criticism of Prem Rawat being "policed out" I would draw the attention of the ArbCom to the article Criticism of Prem Rawat (whose full contents have been recently merged into the main article by User:Francis Schonken upon concerns of being a POV fork) in which criticism sourced to reliable sources is explored in detail. (added ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Also note that the article about Prem Rawat has been edited extensively by a substantial number of editors over the last two and a half years, the result of which is that it is one of the most carefully annotated and meticulously sourced biographies in Wikipedia. Recent editors to this article include User:Andries, User:Francis Schonken, User:Centrx, User:Smeelgova, User:Mael-Num, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Momento, and others. This is in contradiction to Mr. Wright's assessment of an "Imbalance of editing: Rigid policing by Prem Rawat's supporters".

Profuse links

Mr Wright asserts that "Elan Vital is linked profusely from this and other articles". This is incorrect. See Web links]. The website of Elan Vital is linked four times from the article Elan Vital (organization) and twice more from other articles, as well as some talk page archives.

Conflict of interest

As it pertains to my conflict of interest, I would want to inform the ArbCom that after my disclosure to this effect, I have been extremely cautious with my edits, have only made non-contentious contributions to the article, and have as per guidelines, offered scholarly material and other sources and opinions in talk, for involved editors' evaluation. See for example Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. I have added new scholarly material here and there only after ensuring that there were no objections from other editors. I have also attempted to maintain basic talk-page discipline and encouraged involved editors to refrain from editwarring and to discuss ways to improve the article instead. Unfortunately, some editors still believe that reverting each other accomplishes something, despite the fact that it does not. See last iteration of this here.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/1)

  • Please provide diffs showing that the other two involved users have been notified, and provide a brief summary of previous steps in dispute resolution attempted in the appropriate section. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. I believe that content matters raised by article subjects and others who are directly affected by an article are squarely outside our remit and inside that of the OTRS team. I note you have already contacted them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject, not seeing an ArbCom case here. Will review again if more information is provided. FloNight 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Recuse Fred Bauder 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per UC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, per FloNight. Paul August 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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 - [141]
User talk:Martintg - [142]
User talk:Grafikm fr - [143]
User talk:Irpen - [144]
User talk:Petri Krohn - [145]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


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: [146], incl. Britannica, Encarta and similar sources [147]
  2. Although Irpen admited, that “[t]here is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law” [148], 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 deniers? 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)

PS. Some users have claimed, as if this were a pure content dispute. However, one should note that a content dispute requires grounded opinions by both disputing sides, i.e verifiable sources must be cited by both sides. As it is, those who claim Latvia was not occupied, have NOT found ANY sources, they merely add tags, which they 'motivate' with their own inventions. I think this is WP:OR or soapboxing.Constanz - Talk 09:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Could someone please explain me, how can a dispute be resolved, if one side refuses to recognise WP:V and WP:NPOV (e.g majority POV)? Constanz - Talk 09:30, 27 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[149] [150] 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, the intent of which is to reflect views held in common usage, by certain individuals who apply 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 approaching this issue in good faith. Martintg 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how successful mediation would be when one side basically doesn't assume good faith in the motive of others and fling all manner of baseless accusations and conspiracy theory hoping it will stick. We have Petri Krohn claiming that failing to whitewash the facts of Stalinist crimes is tantamount to Holocaust denial [151]. We have Irpen claiming the article is tendentious, over emphasizing Soviet atrocities while saying nothing of Nazi crimes [152], while in fact Vercrumba clearly states that the Nazi section is incomplete [153] Grafikm reiterates Irpen's groundless accusations of tendentious editing to minimise Nazi crimes but goes even further and the accuses contributors to the article of being Baltic nationalists pushing the agenda of Nazism and Holocaust denial in his statement below[154] offending Vercrumba in the process, while I am presented as a single purpose account in conspiracy with Constanz, although I've never corresponded with him ever. God only knows why they find the description of Stalinist crimes committed during the occupation of Latvia so "inflammatory", millions of Russians suffered too. Perhaps they enjoy Balt baiting or perhaps there is some other political agenda at play and this article is merely their battleground to sock it to those "nazi balts", who knows, but it is rather offensive, given tragic history Churchill characterised as that deadly comb that ran back, forth and back again over the Baltics [155]. Frankly I don't see how mediation will moderate their behaviour. Martintg 11:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe Petri Krohn's views expressed in his "heart of the matter" statement below [156] is also shared by Irpen and Grafikm. It appears to confirm my second conclusion, that the article has become their battleground to serve a larger political agenda, in this case against the perceived injustices of the Baltic States. I don't think Wikipedia ought to become a platform for soapboxing and manipuation of past history to serve political expediencies of today. This is beyond a content dispute. Their POV tagging appears to be driven by their political views, this explains their chronic disregard for verifiable references to published sources. This case really ought to go to arbitration. Martintg 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! The citizenship laws passed in 1990s (labelled rather liberal in European context by e.g. Boris Meissner) are brought here by Petri as the real cause, accusations of “ethnocracy” (see below) are repeated. And if we come acquainted with Petris' other contributions on Baltic topic, we clearly see WHO might be using Wikipedia as tool to promote some personal points of view: a “Baltic gang” is said to be “harassing”, Petri's opponents are accusations of being “ethnofascist POV pushers”. And yes, poor Edward Lucas was also severy criticised (on his Wiki talk page) for his articles! It seems that everyone who doesn't agree with Petri's ideas about the Baltics will get his own part! I really think we need arbitration here. Constanz - Talk 09:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

As one of the authors, having combined two prior articles. I have already responded at length to Irpen's objections regarding the structure being a mess, I have clearly stated it is still a work in progress that has only thoroughly dealt with the first year of Soviet occupation. (There has also been discussion, since there is an article on the Nazi Occupation, that this would be devoted to the Soviet occupation alone for improved clarity.) I have also apologized for having to put in "why an occupation" because of all those who insist "occupation" is a POV term while providing not one single shred of evidence to support that position. I have posted requests on all three Baltic States discussion pages (where this sort of dispute has also occurred) inviting ANYONE with ANY evidence to the contrary that has ANY basis in fact to present it for discussion. There has been ZERO response.

The Occupation of Latvia lasted from the first Soviet occupation through the entire Soviet era. The Soviet presences in Latvia were an occupation for their entire duration until the reestablishment of the Latvian Republic continuous with that established in 1918. This position is accepted by the international community except by Russia, whose declaration by Russia's Duma I have cited. There is no other discussion of the alternate viewpoint, which, though I personally vehemently disagree with, would actually be quite informative: that is, why is it exactly that Russia denies the Soviet occupation? Especially when Lavrov was negotiating during the Soviet era with the Baltic S.S.R.s for the Soviet Union to declare its presence in the Baltics an occupation? (Sadly, original research based on sources directly involved--and which I have NOT included.) And why is there no other discussion? Not because the article is a POV Great Patriotic War denier, it's because there's simply no further insight to be had, not even in my "Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian S.S.R." So, what is the article specifically non-compliant about?

  • all the sources for the article are listed; there is absolutely nothing in the article that qualifies as my personally stated viewpoint or as original research or, indeed, any kind of personally drawn conclusion whatsoever; I have been completely scrupulous in this regard
  • if Irpen wishes, I can footnote every last sentence from said reputable sources, his claim that the article is original research is completely, totally, and utterly baseless; sadly, the nature of the overall debate is that even when in I have quoted the Congressional Record of official findings of the United States government's congressional committees, which clearly find the Soviet presence an "occupation," even those references are shouted down as biased and inflammatory; and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Latvia's Museum of Occupation as blatant POV incarnate is not to be believed (it would appear that even Soviet documents which clearly talk about occupying Latvia are now biased by the act of merely being held in Latvian hands)
  • as distasteful as I find it, I have taken care to cite the Russian dissenting position clearly at the outset; the only reasonable official position--the declaration of the Russian Duma--is provided; and I have even refrained from making any POV observation that the Duma has not provided any evidence to support its position
  • were there any reputable evidence for the Russian official position, it would be presented--it is their position after all and it's important to understand even if it is in a minority of one; however, I have not located any such evidence; neither has anyone responded to my open invitation for any reputable content which can be cited (not their personal interpretations of the Hague Conventions on the rules of war, for example) to be included to shed light on the Russian position; instead, all that is heard is abject consternation that the word "occupation" is an insult to Russia, etc. etc., the Russians saved Latvia from Hitler, etc. etc.--conveniently forgetting that the very occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was the result of Hitler and Stalin dividing up Eastern Europe between them
  • as I have indicated and tagged, the article is a work in progress; unfortunately my Wikitime has been spent on more urgent matters of late for which I apologize; as well, my personal time has been severely limited over the past six to eight months; and quite frankly, I got tired of repeating this argument every few weeks with a new set of protagonists and took a Wikibreak from this issue after adding the "why occupation" section, consolidated from a umber of discussions
  • now that this is potentially heading for arbitration I would welcome the opportunity to close this issue once and for all.

I repeat my request: anyone who has any reputable evidence to the contrary that the Soviet Union did not "occupy" Latvia, please present it. That does not change, however, that the Soviet presence in Latvia was illegal, that Latvia neither legally nor voluntarily "joined" the Soviet Union, that "annexation" does not terminate "occupation," or that the legal and sovereign government of Latvia continued to function de jure in exile until the reestablishment of said sovereign authority on Latvian territory, all of which make it the occupation of Latvia.

I fail to see how one can insist that presenting verified facts is "inflammatory." I would submit that vehement denial and constant POV tagging of facts is the true "inflammatory" action. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Grafikm

This article is a perfect example of tenditious editing edit wars waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Wikipedia. Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial, such as monuments erected to local Waffen SS troopers, desecration of WWII war monuments, and so on. Unfortunately, some people are trying to push the corresponding agenda on Wikipedia.

User:Constanz has been edit warring on this article for quite a moment now. He was blocked once for 3RR on this article, and have been accusing everyone who did not agree with him as "vandal" (see history) and dismissing their arguments as "Soviet propaganda". Obviously, asking him to read the corresponding policies would have been of little effect. He is trying to present his own opinion (since he's about the only one to contribute on the talk page) as "consensus" and apparently does not understand that while some sort of consensus is not reached, the tag has to stay as a warning for a casual reader. And by the way, content disputes are in no way vandalism.

User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account (contribs) whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars.

As for User:Vecrumba, he did not take a part in that agenda pushing. Still, I'm surprised by his statement. If he thinks that wording like "is the most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda" are NPOV, he should seriously reread the corresponding WP policies. What is also interesting is the fact that he could not find pre-1991 sources calling it an occupation (check the first three refs: all of them are post-1991 material). One also has to notice that slapping together two different periods like 1940-1941 and 1941-1944, thus lowering the significance of Nazi crimes, is a form of Holocaust denial that should not be tolerated on WP.

Finally, I would like to point out that any attempt by me, Irpen, or other users like User:Grant65, were boycotted by Constanz and Martintg. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't find pre-1991 sources? None of those "first three" references are mine. The congressional resport is from long before 1991, I'll be glad to add as many sources through the entire period as you would like that call it an occupation. Abot the Waffen SS, Latvians (and Eastern Europeans) in general were conscripted into the Waffen SS (or joined simply to fight against the Soviets)--remember this was after the mass deportations executed by the Soviets. Your calling honoring/remembering Waffen SS as Nazi rehabilitation is simply misinformed. (The Eastern European Waffen SS were exonerated in the post-WWII trials.) As I indicated the article is in progress (and there is a Nazi occupation page--this article may be better off dealing with just the Soviet occupation). And about the Holocaust... my father-in-law was sent to warn their (Jewish) family friend to warn her... a teenager picking his way through fields of bodies reaching her house only to find her beheaded by the Nazis. Consider your words before you accuse people of Holocaust denial. You still have said nothing to indicate in any way it was not an occupation by the Soviets.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Grafikm fr's statement is a perfect illustration to his own disputing style on Latvia article:
  • This article is a perfect example of tenditious editing edit wars - since when is reflecting majority POV tendentious editing?
  • waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Wikipedia. - actually, Graf's position has only been supported by 2 or 3 revert warriors. There has been twice as many of their opponents.
  • Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial - Does this 'argument' prove that the occupation didn't take place (that's what Graf SHOULD be proving)? A straw man argument very characteristic to the dispute on talk page!
  • User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars. - I think this sentence would well characterise Graf's recent edits' relation to Irpen.
  • And once again, the user FAILED TO CITE HIS SOURCES, WHICH COULD HINT THAT LATVIA WASN'T OCCUPIED. Why is he hiding his sources?! How is it possible for someone to pursue NPOV without citing sources? Constanz - Talk 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn

There are plenty of sources that show to that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. There are also sources that show that Latvia and Latvians voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940. Until 1991 most of the worlds governments saw the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union as legal. After 1991 this has become one of the most contested issues in international politics and modern history. Whichever of these views is more correct, the issue requires a balanced coverage in a dedicated article with a neutral point of view.

Grouping the actions of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic together with Nazi war crimes, under a common title of "occupation", precludes any neutral writing on the subject.

The dispute here is not about whether Soviet rule in Latvia was occupation or not, but the arbitrary grouping and merging of different rules under one title of "occupation". This is a propaganda/POV pushing trick. What the creators of the article have done is like merging George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler under The Great Satan.

I do not think there is a place for an article in Wikipedia under the present title. In its present form it only serves as a tool for ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech. At best it is a POV fork of material covered in other articles. The article should be deleted. Most of the material could be moved or merged to The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia [157]. The remaining material should be moved to (if not already covered in) Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Occupation of Baltic Republics (another POV title), Battle of Narva - Battle of the Tannenbergstellung (1944), Courland Pocket, etc... (The first two definitely need expansion.)

And now to my personal views: The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States to deprive citizenship from their ex-soviet citizens. The view expressed in this article is the one promoted by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, a propaganda tool of the Latvian government. True or not, the views expressed in the article are vital for the legitimicy of Latvian policy. Given the resources of the state, there is no scarcity of printed sources supporting this views. Opponent however see the whole Latvian state as an illegal ethnocracy. I tend to agree.

I also object to the article on moral grounds. The article tries to equate the actions of the Soviet Union (and Soviet citizens in the Baltic Republics) with those of Nazi Germany. I see this as a form of Holocaust revisionism. It denies the unique nature if Nazi war crimes by equating them to real or imagined crimes of others. -- Petri Krohn 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This RfA and the edit war that promted it does not seem to be about the content of the article. It is about about the POV-tags; the right of opponents of the content or name to tag the article. So far I have not contributed to the article. I have only reverted the deletion of the {{POV-title}} tag and added a {{Totally-disputed-section}} (which was immediately removed). This is the reason I am included in this dispute. On this tag-issue I believe repeated removal of POV-tags is vandalism. -- Petri Krohn 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There are plenty of sources that show to that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. There are also sources that show that Latvia and Latvians voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940 - Why are the ”plenty of sources” NOT CITED by any of my opponents? In fact, the statement by Petri is minority POV, of a tiny minority I'd say. Today, no serious source calls the Soviet takeover, forged elections and annexation as voluntary accession to the USSR. Petri's view suits the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but not here.
  • I do not think there is a place for an article in Wikipedia under the present title. In its present form it only serves as a tool for ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech. - I ask again - does the article with the same title in Britannica also serve “ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech”? Or perhaps it's Krohn himself who wishes to use Wikipedia as a tool to promote his own views of Baltics (like here: [158])?
  • The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States... and: illegal ethnocracy - well, this part of Petri's argumentation really shows, that HE is using this dispute as a tool to promote his views about the Baltics. He seems to claim here that the USSR annexed the states in 1940, because the Baltic states passed “Nurember style laws” in 1990s ! Compare Petri Krohn's other contributions on the topic: see that you too have been harassed by the "ethnofacist" POV pushers”. Very strong statements (even if we exclude namecalling) by a user whose dispute merely relies on his own analysis of the events!Constanz - Talk 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/4/0/0)

  • 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)
  • Change to Accept to investigate bad behavior (not content.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 29 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)
  • Accept per Dmcdevit, in order to examine the conduct issues surrounding the case. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. If there is a conduct issue, the disputants may bring a case addressing it alone if they wish. Otherwise, the matter as presently framed is primarily a content dispute outside our remit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Accept per Dmcdevit and reading the actual article and talk history - this complaint doesn't go into it, but it doesn't look acceptable to me. We don't have to stick within the lines drawn by the complaint, if we don't want to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at editor conduct. Charles Matthews 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Still essentially a content dispute, if a heated one; I'd prefer it if there was some evidence of a failed attempt at mediation before hearing this. Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept to examine user conduct that is keeping the content dispute from being resolved. FloNight 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline per Kirill. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. To look into behaviour, not the content issues. - SimonP 21:43, 29 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

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
  • An editor started a mediation cabal case, but Lucky 6.9 deleted it.
  • 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.
  • Personal attacks like "you gutless wonder" and "get a life you pathetic loser", or this sexually explicit one or this one with profanity are a persistent problem. Less-offensive edit summaries belittling people's good faith attempts as "idiocy", "crap", or otherwise worthless are constantly (daily) left - WP:biting far more than simple templates would.
  • A relevant discussion developed from the mediation case on Administrator's Noticeboard, both about his deletions and inappropriate blocking[159]. I did not participate in the discussion.
  • I began a user conduct RfC but abandoned it upon the belief that he seems to be renouncing his adminship and I don't think RfC can act upon that.
  • Placeholder for an issue dropped from this RfArb [160]

Statement by Reswobslc (talk · contribs)

Completely rewritten 1/28/07 23:03 UTC

The main subject has changed entirely - here is the diff to the old one.

While many people have complained about Lucky 6.9, one thing everyone's surely seen is that Lucky spends an enormous amount of time cleaning up after vandals. His persistence to stick with a task that most people characterize as drudgery is enviable. His willingness to stay here for the number of years that he has, and clean up so many little messes to the point it's a major task just to peruse his edit history, speaks to a unique character who performs an essential and valuable task here at Wikipedia.

The question at hand here is this: In consideration of the numerous good deeds he does, to what extent do the rules not apply to him? And when he acts in disregard of the rules, what is an appropriate consequence for someone who is essentially doing a volunteer thankless job for the encyclopedia, and whose presence should not be taken for granted?

Is it appropriate that a good administrator be entitled to be occasionally abusive and destructive without any sort of accountability? Depending on the value he brings to the encyclopedia, perhaps so. It's very plausible that having a person hurt a few newbies' feelings with a condemnation of their efforts or a sexually explicit personal attack to an anonymous vandal's IP address on a bad day is a fair price to pay for someone who tirelessly cleans up people's crap, and that upsetting him by "desysopping" him results in a net loss to the encyclopedia - not just for his cleanup, but for a member of the community whose heart is truly part of the project, whether for better or for worse at any given time. But having such a person held to zero accountability for the rules he's trusted to enforce is also morally destructive to any community, not just Wikipedia.

I don't think I'm alone here. As an essay statement currently on the user page of one other administrator: "The vast majority of admins with whom I've had contact have been helpful, considerate, and professional in their approach. They're human, though, and occasionally one will develop a blind spot with regard to some issue, or a far from disinterested approach, and act against Wikipedia rules. What seems to happen then is that either their behavior is ignored by other admins, or (especially when the clamour of ordinary users is loud) they're subjected to a mild finger-wagging. If non-admins had behaved in the same way, they'd likely have been blocked from editing for a while — either generally or on a specific article or topic. Simple fairness demands the same treatment for the same behaviour — but given that admins are in fact expected to behave better than ordinary editors, it would seem right that they should be treated more strictly when they fall well short. Now that I am an admin, I hold the same view, incidentally."

If true, could a status quo like this be a scourge to the community? While it may be overreaching to desysop anyone who breaks a rule, and demoralizing to set hard boundaries on people that are supposed to be leaders, isn't it a problem worthy of consideration that no one holds administrators responsible for misbehavior? So much emphasis seems to have been placed on avoiding "wheel wars", that members of the admin community would rather support a fellow admin in allowing or perpetrating a destructive act, rather than say or do something lest they be accused of, or even be perceived as, "wheel warring".

While thinking about the RfArb for a couple days, and considering the comments people have left, my feelings that "this guy should be lynched as an administrator" have subsided. But whether there's a problem with administrator accountability that's hurting Wikipedia is one that should be discussed seems undeniable to me. Reswobslc 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Items proposed as worth ArbCom consideration
  1. Deletion of new articles. Often, deleted articles clearly meet speedy criteria, but were the result of a good faith effort to start a good article. What hurts people's feelings is the destruction of their work, seconds after they saved it, and perhaps not understanding that the only thing condemning their article is an assertion of notability, or some reliable sources. In many cases, moving a potentially workable article to user space, would get the "crap" out of the main space, and permit the author to fix what's wrong with it whenever possible. If a userfied article remained "crap" or untouched for a day or two, then deleting it should be no problem.
  2. Abusive comments. There is no place for abusive comments to vandals or to authors of "crap". Comments in deletion summaries and warnings should be limited to the templates, and not "get a life" comments, or a labeling of a contribution as "idiocy" or even "crap". I admit I vandalized a couple pages when I first met WP - the intrigue of the "how could they let me do that" idea was the novelty that attracted me to learn more about WP and eventually make good edits to articles. Persistently WP:BITEing vandals and newbies (never mind making sexually explicit personal attacks upon them) is far more destructive to the project that anyone can see. My very first creation to Wikipedia was speedied for being nonsense, and my second was converted to a redirect for having no reliable sources. Both articles were "crap", but I learned to since start tens or hundreds of keepable articles, partly by being politely pointed to WP:N and WP:RS, and not by having my contribution disappear and being labeled garbage.
  3. Accountability for minor violations. We block vandals constantly in the hopes that they'll take a break, think about their actions, and come back more productive than they left. Why can't the same work for administrators? We're all human. When an administrator makes a series of blatant personal attacks, can't there be a workable way to block them for 24 hours to cool off? Their administrative peers don't do that, and probably rightfully so. When an administrator misuses a delete, protect, or block, not only do their administrative peers don't want to undo that, nobody wants to condemn the administrator as having made a mistake. We have dispute resolution, but it's ineffective when the administrator can and does refuse to participate, whether it's because he/she deletes the DR page outright, or because no admin can or will compel their cooperation. But when the only group that can act on them (apparently ArbCom) needs 10 days and 4 net votes to do anything, the disincentive for breaking the "little rules" like WP:NPA - the rules everyone else seems to have to follow - or by really stretching the rules to justify misuse of an admin tool - is nonexistent.

Thank you for your consideration. Reswobslc 23:43, 28 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)

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)

  • Looking at the revised version, I disagree that this is the job of ArbCom and I disagree that any meaningful number of articles should be userfied - easily 90% of my deletions stay deleted, and many of the balance are protected deleted, often by other admins. All you get by userfying is Wikipedia-as-MySpace (WP:NOT). There are problems with the firehose of crap and how we handle it, but an RFAr on a hard-working admin started by an editor in dispute with that admin is not the way to do it. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposal: If ArbCom thinks that Lucky 6.9 is acting a bit stressed, why not ask Zoe or someone to do a bit of mentoring? Admin meltdown is an occasional but recurrent problem, we need to explore ways of fixing it without resorting to arbitration (and especially without encouraging the trolls who so often cause it to resort to arbitration). Guy (Help!) 20:59, 30 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)
What do those edits have to do with this dispute? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 27 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. n6c 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Moved threaded comments. Please only comment in your own section. Thatcher131 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/4/0/0)

  • Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since someone asked for clarification below, my reasons mirror UC's. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Admin peccadilloes can be cut some slack, if people need to be told that. Charles Matthews 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept to look into allegations of misuse of admin rights and incivility. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Paul August 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. This case, as presented, is a mere aggregation of weak claims on minor matters (many of them stale) regarding a highly active user, combined with a recent flameout. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept, per Flcelloguy. Kirill Lokshin 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per The Uninvited Co.,. FloNight 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Change to accept after reading rewrite. I think we can have a positive influence here to help an admin find better ways to deal with conflict. It is worth a try, I think. FloNight 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Deletions seem fine, but comments like [161] and [162] are really unacceptable. - SimonP 21:20, 29 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.


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)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/8/0/0)

  • 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)
  • 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) Reject I do not see that this case will resolve the issue at hand. Other remedies need to be pursued through different channels if there continues to be problems in #wikipedia-en-admins after recent changes have time to work and fail to adequately address the problem. --FloNight 18:03, 29 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. After further consideration I have concluded that this is inappropriate as a case. However, for the sake of transparency, I will post a complete summary of my views on this matter at /Arbitrators' views regarding IRC and have encouraged other committee members to do the same. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:46, 29 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)
  • On further consideration, Reject - I think this is NOT within our remit and I don't think it is going to clarify anything. 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)
  • Reject. I see no fruitful results coming from this, and I'm not prepared to open up another venue for related conflicts without an acceptable scope (i.e. individual misconduct which continues despite dispute resolution). Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Charles put it best. - SimonP 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. There are some things needing clarification here about the usage of the channel, at the very least. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 31 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 regarding Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University edit bombing

This concerns an article under probabion in accordance with an arb com ruling of 12 Jan 2007 [163].

Some intense editing took place between 28 January 2007 and 29 January 2007. Most of the edits were made by user Some_people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who has now been banned on the grounds of being most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user banned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). During these 11 hours a total of about 50 edits took place about 28 of which were by user Some People. Up until that time some of us had been reverting edits by Some_People since we were quite sure that this was a sockpuppet due to the highly distinctive disruptive style, POV and bias, frequency and taunting edit comments.

During this burst of activity another editor, known to have similar views to 244, joined in the editing although perhaps not intentionally to cause trouble, TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted the article 00:24 [164] and 01:06 [165]. Unfortunately, at this time more than Some People's contribution got reverted. The result of this was a stern warning by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) that this was unacceptable [166]. The outcome of the thread is what I would like some clarification on [167]. If I am reading what Thatcher131 is saying correctly then this is how it seems to me,

  • An editor may revert edits made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor,
  • A valid edit by a non-banned editor may not be reverted even if it is on top of disruptive edits from a banned user,
  • A non-banned editor can include content from the banned editor if it meets Wikipedia's content requirements etc.

To me, this exposes a serious loophole. It seems that it is now possible for a banned user to hijack an article overnight by making a bunch of edits through an anonymous proxy and if another editor drops by and adds to it then it is signed, sealed and there is not a darn thing any other editor can do to revert it any more. This is particularly a problem given the nature of 244's edits that Thatcher131 has accurately described in the thread linked to above. I am seriously concerned that we will see the same pattern of behaviour again unless there is some way we can prevent it. Suffice to say, the events of the last 24 hours have caused some grave concern amongst the "pro" editors. We are now looking at a seriously unbalanced article and to try and separate out the valid editor's contributions from Some People's is going to be a mammoth task, if that is what we are expected to do.

I suggest that it sends a bad signal if what appears to be a banned user showing complete indifference to the arb com ruling is allowed to "get away with it" in such a blatent way. I await some clear advice on how to deal with this problem should it arise in future.

Thanks and regards, Bksimonb 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention this link as well [168] and the fact that the current article is a version of user "Some people" plus TalkAbout. User Andries had a minor participation in it. I have requested the article to be reverted to 17:30 Jan 28 2007 by Riveros11. I made this request to the current admin, Thatcher131 who so far is the only one who appers to handle/postpone our requests. Best, avyakt7 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not on, or anywhere near, the ArbCom, but a couple of observations. First of all, what's stopping you from going through the new edits and deciding what to keep and what to toss on the merits of the individual edits? Which exact words may or may not have originated from a banned user is clearly secondary to this. Secondly, if you have good reason to believe that an article-banned user is in fact orchestrating all this, then all legalism aside they're behaving badly and can be treated accordingly; if you need a hand, go to WP:AN/I or WP:AE depending on the seriousness of the problem and call in an admin. Following policy to the letter is not what's important. It's worth pointing out in connection with this that gaming the system - i.e. not quite violating a Wikipedia policy as written, or generally using the letter of the rules to subvert their spirit - is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. PurplePlatypus 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest and pointing out the more appropriate places to post. I had a feeling I may have been posting in the wrong place but couldn't at the time find anywhere better. I thought at the time it was a "clarification" issue rather than a "noticeboard" issue since an admin was at the scene. I just couldn't at the time make sense of how things were panning out.
Not sure if the bit about "Wikilawyering" was directed at me or Avyakt7 but I appologise if I caused that impression. This was not intentional.
Please understand that an individual incident by itself may appear trivial when in fact it is just a tip of the iceberg to a long-running issue that may not be immediately obvious to those outside. Editors do get banned for good reason.
Since my original post above Thatcher131 has clarified things further on the article Talk page and I am now reasonably satisfied we know what to do the next time such an incident takes place, as it certainly will if recent events are anything to go by.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Robert Prechter (and Socionomics)

Socionomics is one of the articles at issue in this Arbitration. On January 27, it was listed as being considered for deletion. I've been a contributor to the Socionomics article, though not in the period since the Committee agreed to hear this case; the other editor in this Arbitration dispute and I have both observed an unspoken "cease-fire." I do not want to break that cease-fire.

The RfD has raised issues that edits to the article could address, but I have gone no further than to make my case to "Keep." Nevertheless, the editors who have voted "Delete" seem aggressively eager to proceed, despite knowing that Socionomics is part of this Arbitration. I would greatly appreciate guidance from the Committee regarding these issues. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 16:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an offshoot of the problems caused by my 3 week Christmas vacation interupting the arbitration on Robert Prechter. It seems that User:Rgfolsom and myself are done putting in all our evidence, etc. on the Robert Prechter arbitration. I'd think it better if the ArbCom decided the issue as a whole, rather than have have socionomics deleted right away. I don't of course argue with editors rights to delete socionomics. Smallbones 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the Request for deletion can run its course without affecting the arbitration. Fred Bauder 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding

Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the Manual of Style, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? Seraphimblade 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that don't match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an explicit consensus that they be adopted. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case, what brought the question on was a section in Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as MiB) should be used rather than notation such as megabyte where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? Seraphimblade 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS should say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it currently says is correct). Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you for your help. Seraphimblade 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba

User:Andries posted [169] a note to Talk:James Randi demanding that the link to James Randi's webpage be removed from the article. Given the threat of banning in the post, I'd like the arbitrators to make clear their opinion on this.--Prosfilaes 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My request for an indefinite ban was sarcastic. I think and hope that this case will be decided too in the pending case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision. Andries 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In context, I agree it's clear that that was not a serious proposal or interpretation. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The point at issue here is whether Andries' interpretation is correct or incorrect. As I understand it, his interpretation is that no site which contains any poorly -sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be linked to by any article, regardless of the subject of the article. This means, for example, that because a former British Member of Parliament wrote an Early Day Motion criticising Sathya Sai Baba in 2002, and this motion remains on the website of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that linking to is not allowed by any article – whether or not that article has any connection to the Early Day Motion or the MP concerned.

I can't believe that this interpretation is accurate, because of its immensely far-reaching implications. The alternative interpretation is that the remedy only applies where the article contains some assertion related to Sathya Sai Baba, and that seems to be what was intended. Sam Blacketer 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any interpretation, because I have become thoroughly confused about what is allowed and not. Andries 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The threat and this request verge on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This remedy applies to "article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him." The remedy has been extended to Robert Priddy because Priddy's entire reason for importance, according to you, is that he is a critic of Sai Baba. He controls 4 web sites, one of which is appropriate for inclusion in his biography and 3 of which are not, because they deal exclusively with criticism of Sai Baba that is based on personal experience and non-reliable sources. You are in danger of being banned from these articles because you did not change your behavior after getting amnesty in the first arbitration case against you, by edit warring over the inclusion of the negative links. James Randi is not affiliated with Sai Baba or his organization, nor does his fame rest on being a notable Sai Baba critic. Therefore, the fact that you can find two pages of criticism on his website is entirely irrelevant. Thatcher131 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the prompt clarification. I did not edit war on the entry James Randi. So a relevant link to a website with poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba is fine as long the entry does not mention Sathya Sai Baba? Andries
Following Thatcher131's way of reasoning, the links to the websites of Basava Premanand (the famous opponent of Sathya Sai Baba) are forbidden too, just like in the case of Robert Priddy. Or am I mistaken? Andries

Request for clarification on votes in the Lucky 6.9 request

Could arbitrators who have voted on the Lucky 6.9 request above please provide a few words of explanation? I think the matter at least merits comment, whether or not it merits an actual case. n6c 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
Is it coincidence that I raised this very question on WT:RFA the day before this, almost to the hour?[170]
FWIW, in the absence of any allegations of improper behavious by Carnildo (and, as far as I am aware, his behavious has been exemplary), I think we should accept that lots of water has flowed under this bridge and we should move on. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 29 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)
I have taken a look through some of the talkpages and logs and find no evidence of any allegations that Carnildo has abused his administrator tools since he was resysopped.
Has Carnildo has been advised that this conversation about him is going on here? Since it's not clear that he has, I will leave a note on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom has established that the Carnildo's candidacy "failed to reach consensus".

This is a fact, not a speculation. The policy requires consensus of the community and this has not changed. Is there any evidence that consensus of editors regarding Carnildo's adminship now exists? ArbCom needs to show that such consensus now exists or come with the creative measure to gauge it. It would be a grave mistake to have a user whose adminship is demonstrated to not have been achieved by consensus and at the same time pretend that it does not matter anymore unless the policy that requires consensus in the first place is not changed. --Irpen 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, his adminship was reinstated on a probationary basis. If he's not causing problems then that's an end of it. The whole purpose of RfA is simply to produce admins who can service the encyclopedia without causing problems. It's 'no big deal'. That's the only purpose of the discussion there. If Carnildo is now acting as a reasonable admin, then celebrate - Wikipedia is better off. If he's not, then let's desysop him fast. --Docg 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, adminship was reinstated against consensus. This was established by an ArbCom. Please do not skip this important step. If his exemplary behavior changed the editors' view towards his adminship, then celebrate. If ArbCom can demonstratively establish that such consensus exist, Wikipedia is better off. If the issue of consensus is now moot, the policy should be amended to reflect that. --Irpen 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am certain that the purpose of Naeblis' question above and Fred's throwing the floor open to inquiry was not to rehash the events and decisions made in September. The disagreements at that time are vividly remembered and the fact that the ArbCom decision in the so-called "Giano" case arguably contained some internal inconsistencies need not be rehashed at this point either. I doubt very much that given the aftermath, anyone will point to this situation as a precedent to be followed in the future, so unless there is a specific and current concern about Carnildo, I would not want to see this discussion degenerate into a discussion of past grievances. Not only would this be a distraction from writing the encyclopedia, but it would even be a distraction from the resolution of more current disputes here. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a very specific concern, whether it is OK for someone to have admin buttons despite the lack of consensus. I am not calling for rehashing the events in any way without need. But ArbCom has to address the issue of consensus in some way. If ArbCom sees that there is one now, its should note so in the decision of removing the probation from Carnildo's adminship. The issue of consensus is the fundamental issue of trust and cannot be swept under the rug. --Irpen 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We did that. We are not going to reopen the case. Unless there is some problem with Carnildo's administrative work, that is the end of it. Fred Bauder 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "We did that" meant you did what? I am not calling on reopening the case anywhere here, btw. --Irpen 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Against consensus" or "against a baying mob including a fair number of disgruntled image copyright violators?" There were a lot of supports, and the opposes included at least one "proxy vote" on behalf of a banned user. Is there any evidence that Carnildo is causing a problem right now? Guy (Help!) 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of oppose votes were based off of Carnildo's actions during the pedophilia userbox wheel war (I know mine was). not just his thankless OrphanBot work. Hbdragon88 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
JzG, I think your characterization of the opposition in Carnildo's RfA is quite unfair. While there were indeed some editors who opposed simply because of OrphanBot, these were very few (something around five or so). The vast majority of opposers were concerned because of his abuse of the admin tools last year. That said, I can find no objection to Carnildo's actions as an admin since then. While I still question the decision of the bureaucrats who promoted him, he seems to be handling the position fine. Heimstern Läufer 08:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
JzG, the results of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 are quite clear that there were no consensus supporting this promotion. ArbCom confirmed that and to call the opposers a mob is grossly unfair. Most people opposed for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with OrphanBot. Reasons like arrogance, incivility, wheel-warring and refusal to admit mistakes and apologize.
The policy is quite clear that adminship promotion should be based on consensus. So, the question needs to be not whether he has been good so far with tools but whether his recent adminship activity changed the public opinion on whether the user is trustworthy enough to be an admin. This is not for ArbCom to decide but the community. ArbCom may, however, determine the existence of such consensus, invalidate the policy that requires such consensus in general or rule that this policy does not apply to Carnildo for whatever reason. Whatever decision ArbCom takes, it needs to reconcile the lack of consensus in original RfA and the policy that requires it. --Irpen 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The paedophilia userbox war was not a stellar moment in Wikipedia history. Lots of people did stupid things they later thought better of. Consensus is expressed in the much larger numbers who elect arbitrators and bureaucrats, and in any case majority <> consensus. You appear to be asking for an action to be undone and to re-fight the previous battle; that's probably not going to happen. Is there a present problem with Carnildo's use of the sysop bit that would justify any change in or extensive review of that status? Seems to me he's been keeping his head down and quietly getting on with the job of building the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how your assertion that majority is not the same as consensus is applicable here unless you are denying the fact that Carnildo's promotion was made against the consensus. ArbCom acknowledged what everyone was seeing anyway. All I am saying is that if any kind of the probation or condition of Carnildo's adminship status is lifted, the policy should be either followed (ArbCom needs to gauge such consensus or rule that in its view the consensus now exists) or invalidate the policy that is plain clear on this. The problem is not in Carnildo's perfomance in the last two momths but with the fact that community expressed lack of desire to entrust him tools. If he was an exemplary admin, it may very well be that the community stance on his adminship changed. But that either has to be determined and acknowledged or ArbCom has to explicitly state that the such requirement should not apply to this user. --Irpen 00:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As much as I wish this issue would be better clarified, it's not really what this request for clarification is about. The reason this clarification exists is because it was stated at the time of Carnildo's promotion that his actions would be reviewed by the ArbCom. Not that the bureaucrats' decision would be reviewed. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, consensus is that we use Clue rather than vote counting wherever possible. Which is what happened here. So, what is Carnildo currently doing wrong that might cause that to be overturned? Guy (Help!) 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into a semantical debate of what is the definition of consensus and how it is different from the voting tally results. No one yet claimed that this was consensus. Unless your point is that ArbCom's determination of fact that consensus was not achieved (which coincided with the community perception as well) is counterfactual, the discussion is pointless. The only issue is that reconciliation of this fact with lifting the condition from his adminship needs to be done in some form. Can we say that a mere lack of complaints on his performance in the course of two months indicates the community consensus on his adminship? Perhaps so, but something needs to be said in this regard. --Irpen 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Query here. I don't think the ArbCom is going to desysop Carnildo because there have been no complaints (except for the constant ones about OrphanBot). But this raises another set of questions. The pedophilia userbox wheel war indicated that Carnildo had to go through the normal channels in order to regain adminship, so the previous consensus in his original promotion no longer applies. He was reinstated in a controversial promotion on his second try, which we believed was on a temporary basis. Now that a few months have passed and Carnildo's adminship won't be yanked, how about the others? Anybody who got 61% or higher? Can we ask for them to also be reinstated on a temporary two-month basis, and then if someone complains they get desysopped? I'd like to start with with BostonMA getting some new shiny buttons. Why should Carnildo be able to evade the system, having not achieved consensus, merely because of his involvement in in a previous ArbCom case, while others don't - and they don't have anything as severe on their records? Hbdragon88 23:01, 31 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:[171], 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,[172] 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.[173] 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 [174] 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 MeNeutrality 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 [175], 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."
Somehow I had the impression that Thatcher131 was a member of the Arbcom. Apparently the only actual Arbcom members who have posted here are Fred Bauder and Uninvited Company. --Tsunami Butler 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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 MeNeutrality Project ) 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. Nope. Given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively, I'd call it the opposite of "silly and disruptive". --Calton | Talk 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the examples in question? Nary a one of them involves LaRouche's opinion on anything. Nor were the relevant editors "followers of LaRouche." --Tsunami Butler 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So? My point stands outside of whatever examples you dredge up, given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively. To recap:
  • No Lyndon LaRouche source is a reliable one.
  • Therefore, per standard Wikipedia rules, information from Lyndon LaRouche sources are unreliable and not allowed as third-party references.
ArbCom made its explicit ruling regarding those points in great part to head off the wikilawyering. Or, as David Gerard once said about detailed ArbCom rulings, it's a "No, you can't do THAT, either" ruling. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know, the perspectives of the LaRouche movement are rarely described internally as his "opinions". Instead of "opinions" they are truths that have been discovered by LaRouche and his group. As for who added them there are two issues. The first is that "followers of LaRouche" do not necessarily identify themselves that way on Wikipedia. The other is that unrelated editors, grateful for any sources on obscure topics, may add links without sufficiently evaluating their merits.
Some of this appeal appears based on the presumption that the LaRouche sources are treated in an unprecedented fashion. While their use is specifically restricted in some ArbCom rulings those restrictions are essentially the same as for other fringe sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources. for example. -Will Beback · · 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in time to prove the need for this policy, we once again have an editor warring over the inclusion of LaRouche viewpoints sourced to LaRouche-movement sources. HonourableSchoolboy (talk · contribs) on Free trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Will Beback · · 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine the case that Will is citing here. First of all, although the discussion at Talk:Free trade has been somewhat contentious, it appears to me that differences are being worked out. The most singular thing is that there seems to have been no dispute over the section that Will deleted (this one.) In fact, Mgunn, the editor who had argued with HonourableSchoolboy on a variety of points, specificly invites him here to add such a section, and the only subsequent edit to this section is a modification of the sub-heading, until Will Beback comes along a week later and deletes it altogether. Therefore, the claim that there is edit warring over this section is specious. Likewise, the claim that these are "LaRouche viewpoints" is also specious, regardless of whether LaRouche may agree with them, because he did not originate them. They are common knowledge. Looking at the user contributions of Honourable Schoolboy, I find that Will also threatens to ban him over this edit. So I would like to ask readers, especially members of the ArbCom, two questions on this matter:
  • Does this deletion of material by Will Beback improve, or harm the article?
  • Does his conduct with respect to Honourable Schoolboy enhance, or harm the project? --Tsunami Butler 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)